Luas BXD

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Pete » Mon May 10, 2010 2:01 pm

PVC King wrote:If Luas completed to Abbey Street at least they could terminus the trams at the point Depot whilst they work out how much further North it goes. No better symbol for 2016 than a Luas going down O'Connell Street from College Green; symbol of progress and all that.


Okay PVC King, thats one of your suggestions I like and it makes a lot of sense. Of course if MN was built at the same time, luas might never need to be extended north, whether to Broombridge or Ballymun... Work for extending green line to O'Connell Street could be done in conjunction with MN, reducing the overall cost. I think this is about as close as you and I will get to a compromise so any chance of you budging on metro issue now or are you still in favour of interconnector over metro?
Pete
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Mon May 10, 2010 2:02 pm

Each addition to public transport should improve the overall return of the network. MN improves the business case for interconnector and vice versa.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Mon May 10, 2010 2:39 pm

It does in environmental terms but in financial terms it doesn't assuming that the system moves to weekly, monthly and annual season tickets priced on a zoned basis. By loading more debt on to the exchequer Metro North will increase borrowing costs as will the interconnector; but at least the interconnector delivers an additional 65m p.a.x. on proven existing transport corridors.

The days of raising money at Bund plus 25 basis points or 3.25% are gone and rates will only come down when it is clearly demonstrated that the public finances are under control.

The interconnector will have virtually no running costs as the majority of the rolling stock already exists as do all but 5 stations plus bolt ons; in contrast Metro North involves a huge amount of guesswork as none of the route is proven and all stations excluding Stephens Green would be additional. Add to that the fact that MN will be accompanied by a tied in operational contract which will probably be over-spec'd and difficult to scale back if the 3 bed semi's perform as normal and it constitutes real potential for a serious black hole for cash for decades to come.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Tue May 11, 2010 11:27 am

PVC I think you're factually incorrect when you say that the stock are in place - DART Underground will have to be fully electrified and Iarnród Éireann (IÉ) have advertised for the stock they'll need to provide an urban/suburban network ... so a direct cost there, comparable with Metro North (MN).

You're argument vis-a-vis tickets moving to time-based (rather than journey-based) tickets also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Any component of a network will suffer from the same 'problem', but each component of a network adds to the potential consumer/traveller base and thus to the viability of the whole system. MN also has the distinction of connecting the Airport to the network - surely of all the stops, the Airport is the most likely to generate additional revenue from journey-based tickets (both infrequent public transport users and tourists/business travellers alike).

Both DART Underground and MN are critical pieces of infrastructure and do very different things as part of a network. Both achieve critical objectives for turning public transport in Dublin into a coherent system and not just an assemblage of lines and routes with different operators - let's pray that the National Transport Authority hurries up and becomes useful (no early signs of that happening - very disappointing).

On financing, both are proposed as Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP). I am personally against this model of financing, with perhaps the exception of right now. They have the very attractive feature of involving private finance during the construction phase, then accruing payments once operational. This allows the Government to introduce a stimulus into the economy at a time when it really, really needs it, but without adding to the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PBR). This is very appealing though the lifetime cost to the state would be higher. I think the Government should progress both of these asap...

As an aside, let's not forget that DART is a very inferior version of urban transit (in terms of frequency, integration etc) - personally, I have little confidence that IÉ will run the system well - look at Western Rail Corridor (WRC) - renewed infrastructure and they've put in a completely uncompetitive timetable that makes no effort to integrate into their other existing services - it would make you cry. Meanwhile, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) with Veolia (the operators of Luas) appear to have been very customer oriented, with rapid capacity enhancements and a very frequent level of service. In the same time DART has 'regularised' services to 15 min frequency all day (the clockface element is to be welcomed), but a significant reduction in peak time services - a 15-min frequency is as far as you can push a 'turn-up-and-go' system.
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Tue May 11, 2010 11:35 am

Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 11:52 am

ppjjobrien wrote: PVC I think you're factually incorrect when you say that the stock are in place - DART Underground will have to be fully electrified and Iarnród Éireann (IÉ) have advertised for the stock they'll need to provide an urban/suburban network ... so a direct cost there, comparable with Metro North (MN).


I said the majority of stock is in situ; which I believe it is; journey times will be quicker as the timetable would be less padded due to the number of trains crossing being reduced so much of the existing stock will at least in the early years by usable. MN does not enjoy that luxury as a complete new fleet would be required to run a 5 minute headway timetable regardless of the loadings.



ppjjobrien wrote: You're argument vis-a-vis tickets moving to time-based (rather than journey-based) tickets also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Any component of a network will suffer from the same 'problem', but each component of a network adds to the potential consumer/traveller base and thus to the viability of the whole system. MN also has the distinction of connecting the Airport to the network - surely of all the stops, the Airport is the most likely to generate additional revenue from journey-based tickets (both infrequent public transport users and tourists/business travellers alike).


I have never said that the Airport won't generate an independent load but the forecasts for the airport are outdated and out by I'd say 40% as the base passenger level for this year is c20m versus the 25m predicted and growth rates are likely to be 3% at best versus the 8% growth predicted when the proposal was put together. 40% is a lot of revenue to be missing.

ppjjobrien wrote: Both DART Underground and MN are critical pieces of infrastructure and do very different things as part of a network. Both achieve critical objectives for turning public transport in Dublin into a coherent system and not just an assemblage of lines and routes with different operators - let's pray that the National Transport Authority hurries up and becomes useful (no early signs of that happening - very disappointing).


You refer to it being critical but can you name one element of the transport network that would fail to function without this line?

ppjjobrien wrote: On financing, both are proposed as Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP). I am personally against this model of financing, with perhaps the exception of right now. They have the very attractive feature of involving private finance during the construction phase, then accruing payments once operational. This allows the Government to introduce a stimulus into the economy at a time when it really, really needs it, but without adding to the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PBR). This is very appealing though the lifetime cost to the state would be higher. I think the Government should progress both of these asap .


You mean rolling up interest and a profit margin of 200 to 300 basis points so that when it comes due the exchequer has to pay a significant amount of interest upon interest. There is nothing attractive about paying an extra €20m - €60m a year in interest

ppjjobrien wrote: As an aside, let's not forget that DART is a very inferior version of urban transit (in terms of frequency, integration etc) - personally, I have little confidence that IÉ will run the system well - look at Western Rail Corridor (WRC) - renewed infrastructure and they've put in a completely uncompetitive timetable that makes no effort to integrate into their other existing services - it would make you cry. Meanwhile, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) with Veolia (the operators of Luas) appear to have been very customer oriented, with rapid capacity enhancements and a very frequent level of service. In the same time DART has 'regularised' services to 15 min frequency all day (the clockface element is to be welcomed), but a significant reduction in peak time services - a 15-min frequency is as far as you can push a 'turn-up-and-go' system.


You have just made the perfect argument for the interconnector; when DART launched in 1984 it involved 5m frequencies; due to significant growth in out commuter services to Maynooth and Drogheda and the funnel effect of the Loopline section frequencies have needed to be cut back. You can knock the WRC but be clear IE never wanted this project it was foisted on them by the Government in a political decision; a bit like Metro North purely political and completly unviable in financial terms.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 12:12 pm

Frank Taylor wrote:Very positive business case for Luas BXD, written last June:
http://www.transport21.ie/Publications/upload/File/Business_Cases/BXD_obc_150410_mfp2_opt.pdf


Far from being opposed to this line I am simply concerned about its fundamentally altered route; the link up between red and green is absolutely a must have. However as the DIT campus at Grangegorman is likely to be delayed for quite some time and as Broombridge is already plugged in to the rail network; it would to my mind make more sense to extend towards Ballymun as Metro North is a complete waste of money. When Luas was sanctioned by Mammy it was to be 2 lines now and 1 line later; I would suggest the RPA should do what their Mammy told them when they were young :D

When DIT has funding for Grangegorman; which is itself dependent on a real estate turn around i.e. a lot of the costs were to be covered by the disposal of their existing campus in D2 and D1 then the revised routing would involve a synchronised delivery programme between Campus and Luas. However building a Luas to Grangegorman before then would mean it went through a real donut district which would dramatically affect its operational viability.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Tue May 11, 2010 1:05 pm

Wow! Quick reply! To clarify, I am not arguing against DART Underground - I think the case builds up well and it is a must have project - I just don't accept that MN is not needed as a lot of those who take an interest in trains long seem to have argued on online fora. On your specifics, in as much as I feel able to answer!

PVC King wrote:I said the majority of stock is in situ; which I believe it is; journey times will be quicker as the timetable would be less padded due to the number of trains crossing being reduced so much of the existing stock will at least in the early years by usable. MN does not enjoy that luxury as a complete new fleet would be required to run a 5 minute headway timetable regardless of the loadings.


The electrified fleet available to IE is about 60 EMU sets (DARTs - based on a mix of 2-4 car sets) - to convert the commuter and future DART stock, IE have estimated that they will need to add in excess of 100 additional sets (432 cars) at a cost of about €900m. (source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//iarnrod-eireann-to-order-432-dart-cars.html. At a bear minimum, they're essentially talking about an additional DART line, so looking at it simply, they'd need a minimum of twice the current stock. Further background info is available on the transport1.ie website.

I have never said that the Airport won't generate an independent load but the forecasts for the airport are outdated and out by I'd say 40% as the base passenger level for this year is c20m versus the 25m predicted and growth rates are likely to be 3% at best versus the 8% growth predicted when the proposal was put together. 40% is a lot of revenue to be missing.


I may have misunderstood your point - I thought you were saying that the added revenue delivered by MN would somehow be reduced (or not visible) by virtue of a shift to season/monthly tickets etc - this was the point that didn't make sense to me - I was not commenting on wider forecasts.

I would say, in response to this point, that the forecasts for all projects are likely to be outdated in the short run in the context of a recession (thus pinch of salt for IE's 100m passenger scenario). Whether or not they will return to trend after the recession (when the projects would come on stream) is of course a matter for debate. Forecasts for Lines A and B (Luas) turned out to be pessimistic - I believe because the models underestimate how patterns change when quality options are introduced.

You refer to it being critical but can you name one element of the transport network that would fail to function without this line?


Well, I would've thought linking the second biggest trip generator in the City Region (the airport) is essential to any network! As the airport will only account for something like a quarter of trips to MN (source: RPA on MN pages FAQs), we can only assume that the other 75% is about bringing a wholly new catchment into the network (in a way which the revised DART component does not necessarily achieve). Added to this, as a key component in the planning of the City Region over the next 20-25 years, both DCC and Fingal CoCo have predicated their Development Plans on this piece of infrastructure and therefore a significant component of our future housing provision will live along the line. Ireland has for too long been guilty of not promoting infrastructure-led development - MN is a very positive example of where this was starting to happen. MN unleashes more capacity (in land and 'city' terms) than a simple case on the existing status quo implies.

And just to hedge off any NAMA/boom to bust/all new housing is inherently evil type commentary, there is still a demand over a 20-yr period for new housing (even if we only concentrate on domestically driven demographic changes - people are living longer, having families later, still having a high level of babies etc) - so when, the current backlog clears, there will be a need to ensure that housing is provided in sustainable locations integrated with a sustainable transport proposition.

You mean rolling up interest and a profit margin of 200 to 300 basis points so that when it comes due the exchequer has to pay a significant amount of interest upon interest. There is nothing attractive about paying an extra €20m - €60m a year in interest


PPP is not counted as part of the national debt. In that sense, it is a source of finance we can access right now. I've already said I don't like the model (in general) and that it will be more expensive in the long run. But, and it's a big but, it does offer us an opportunity to deliver these projects when costs are at their lowest, while providing significant direct and indirect employment, and thus a significant short term boost for the economy. Payments for the system will be accrued over a 20-25yr period once it's compete - by then, it will hopefully be something we can afford. Frankly, were we to get both MN and DU, €20-60m (very big range) still seems like a valid amount of money to pay from the point of view of a state for a multi-billion euro investment.

There is no other show in town, the state simply does not have the financial capacity to borrow the money required itself in the coming years. Those that want to see either, or both projects progress will have to accept this component of the process.

You have just made the perfect argument for the interconnector; when DART launched in 1984 it involved 5m frequencies; due to significant growth in out commuter services to Maynooth and Drogheda and the funnel effect of the Loopline section frequencies have needed to be cut back. You can knock the WRC but be clear IE never wanted this project it was foisted on them by the Government in a political decision; a bit like Metro North purely political and completly unviable in financial terms.


IE may not have wanted WRC, but the timetable and interaction of services (same with Limerick Junction to Waterford line) demonstrate how determined they are not to run a decent, customer oriented service. The example I gave about the reduced peak service on DART is not one of capacity constraint, it was a financial choice and a bad one. CIE and its siblings inadvertently (because I don't believe it's intentional) are incapable of placing the travelling public at the heart of what they do. (simple example - three subsidiaries of one parent company - as a customer in Dublin, I cannot look up a journey planner to plan my journey between DB/IE/BE, let alone (shock horror) Luas. I cannot but tickets easily across the three(four). There isn't even a map of high frequency rail and/or bus services available, nor even a link on DB/IE/BE's website to other providers. This is where the NTA should be stepping in immediately and flexing its muscle, but sadly I think the NTA is going to be a complete waste of space - it was a mistake to dilute its focus as a Metropolitan Transit Authority for Dublin.

As a by the by - what IE wanted or otherwise is of no relevance, except to prove the point that they are not fit for purpose. There is an arrogance within these organisations which is startling to behold at times. They should do what they're told - that simple.

DART Underground is an excellent project and should proceed - the numbers stack up. MN is also an excellent project and should proceed - the numbers aren't as good but they still work - with the two in place and a radically overhauled bus network (arguably more ambitious than the current Network Direct project), combined with one organisation providing the customer interface (all ticketing, info and branding) and we start to have in place something like a modern metropolitan transport system along the lines of london, paris, berlin (or any german, dutch, french, scandanavian, austrian, swiss - need I go on! - city). Bring it on!
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 2:05 pm

ppjjobrien wrote:The electrified fleet available to IE is about 60 EMU sets (DARTs - based on a mix of 2-4 car sets) - to convert the commuter and future DART stock, IE have estimated that they will need to add in excess of 100 additional sets (432 cars) at a cost of about €900m. (source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//iarnrod-eireann-to-order-432-dart-cars.html. At a bear minimum, they're essentially talking about an additional DART line, so looking at it simply, they'd need a minimum of twice the current stock. Further background info is available on the transport1.ie website.


You make a fair point on this there is expenditure required; however the cost of the tunnel and stations is listed in the EIB report as being €1bn which I'm not sure if is totally correct but you are taling about a short tunnel and only 5 stations it won't be the full €2bn so there will be an allowance towards rolling stock; even if the rolling stock needs to be expanded this can be done an incremental basis unlike MN as there is a substantial existing base stock to work from.



ppjjobrien wrote:I may have misunderstood your point - I thought you were saying that the added revenue delivered by MN would somehow be reduced (or not visible) by virtue of a shift to season/monthly tickets etc - this was the point that didn't make sense to me - I was not commenting on wider forecasts.


I believe that in the case of MN that most of journeys would involve another mode given that MN only serves 3 City Centre stations and that North of Drumcoundra's catchment the population centres are Swords pop 34,000 but on a very low density (massive parking provision required); Ballymun 20,000 and DCU 10,000 total students including part timers; unlike the interconnector which would by virtue of hitting 5 City centre stations involve just one mode; this would be most evident on the Kildare line where a lot of potential passengers are currently driving to D2; also many more who have given up on Dart because it is currently crush loaded.

ppjjobrien wrote:I would say, in response to this point, that the forecasts for all projects are likely to be outdated in the short run in the context of a recession (thus pinch of salt for IE's 100m passenger scenario). Whether or not they will return to trend after the recession (when the projects would come on stream) is of course a matter for debate. Forecasts for Lines A and B (Luas) turned out to be pessimistic - I believe because the models underestimate how patterns change when quality options are introduced.


Agreed 100m passengers within the first 5 - 10 years is certainly very optimistic but the additional operational costs are limited to the tunnel and only five stations all of which would have retail concession opportunites yielding stonking rents. Luas was underestimated on the basis that the accession states added a massive increase in the population of Dublin more or less the year it opened and the development machine was churning out apartments along its route at a scale it won't for a long time to come again.

With interconnector you are not dependent on 1 narrow catchment but 4 seperate catchments that each serve a higher existing population than that of MN; none of these routings are severed by an airport in terms of their development potential.

ppjjobrien wrote:Well, I would've thought linking the second biggest trip generator in the City Region (the airport) is essential to any network! As the airport will only account for something like a quarter of trips to MN (source: RPA on MN pages FAQs), we can only assume that the other 75% is about bringing a wholly new catchment into the network (in a way which the revised DART component does not necessarily achieve). Added to this, as a key component in the planning of the City Region over the next 20-25 years, both DCC and Fingal CoCo have predicated their Development Plans on this piece of infrastructure and therefore a significant component of our future housing provision will live along the line. Ireland has for too long been guilty of not promoting infrastructure-led development - MN is a very positive example of where this was starting to happen. MN unleashes more capacity (in land and 'city' terms) than a simple case on the existing status quo implies.


Both DCC and Fingal have predicted their development plans on the basis of existing transport infrastructure and the basis that this route may happen. Don't forget that DCC is served by all 4 existing IE lines and Fingal by both the Northern and Maynooth lines. With housing completions nationally down from 90,000 in 2006 when this route was planned to a predicted 12,000 in 2010 and 10,000 in 2011 no development plan in Ireland will be stretched for quite a while to come. To lose one development corridor of 7 (including 2 Luas Lines to be enhanced by link up) to compensate for a 90% decline in demand seems to have no prospect of damaging future prospects.

ppjjobrien wrote:And just to hedge off any NAMA/boom to bust/all new housing is inherently evil type commentary, there is still a demand over a 20-yr period for new housing (even if we only concentrate on domestically driven demographic changes - people are living longer, having families later, still having a high level of babies etc) - so when, the current backlog clears, there will be a need to ensure that housing is provided in sustainable locations integrated with a sustainable transport proposition.


The demographics of the naughties were underpinned by two statistical facts; firstly the baby boom of the late 1970's into early 1980's and the influx resulting from liberialisation of freedom of movement for citizens of the accession states. The next baby boomer generation won't be working for another 15 - 20 years and the accession state scenario will not be repeated again as it was amplified by the limited number of states (Ireland, Sweden, UK) who granted full access in 2004.



ppjjobrien wrote:PPP is not counted as part of the national debt. In that sense, it is a source of finance we can access right now. I've already said I don't like the model (in general) and that it will be more expensive in the long run. But, and it's a big but, it does offer us an opportunity to deliver these projects when costs are at their lowest, while providing significant direct and indirect employment, and thus a significant short term boost for the economy. Payments for the system will be accrued over a 20-25yr period once it's compete - by then, it will hopefully be something we can afford. Frankly, were we to get both MN and DU, €20-60m (very big range) still seems like a valid amount of money to pay from the point of view of a state for a multi-billion euro investment.


The range is based on an s-curve distribution and fluctuations in spread; ithe rate of finance certainly would involve a significant spread to be taken by the PPP provider to compensate for risk and cannot be taken as either accruing only at completion of the project or being on a stright line basis. What it does not include is the interest on interest which would be significant over a 5 year period.

ppjjobrien wrote: There is no other show in town, the state simply does not have the financial capacity to borrow the money required itself in the coming years. Those that want to see either, or both projects progress will have to accept this component of the process.


There is a limited amount government borrowing for projects economists as being essential; the concealment of 30% of GDP by the outgoing Greek Government has meant that all debt must now be 'on balance sheet' under the methodology adopted by the ratings agencies. Given that the state lacks the capacity to pay for Metro North it should be scrapped.


ppjjobrien wrote:IE may not have wanted WRC, but the timetable and interaction of services (same with Limerick Junction to Waterford line) demonstrate how determined they are not to run a decent, customer oriented service. The example I gave about the reduced peak service on DART is not one of capacity constraint, it was a financial choice and a bad one. CIE and its siblings inadvertently (because I don't believe it's intentional) are incapable of placing the travelling public at the heart of what they do. (simple example - three subsidiaries of one parent company - as a customer in Dublin, I cannot look up a journey planner to plan my journey between DB/IE/BE, let alone (shock horror) Luas. I cannot but tickets easily across the three(four). There isn't even a map of high frequency rail and/or bus services available, nor even a link on DB/IE/BE's website to other providers. This is where the NTA should be stepping in immediately and flexing its muscle, but sadly I think the NTA is going to be a complete waste of space - it was a mistake to dilute its focus as a Metropolitan Transit Authority for Dublin.

As a by the by - what IE wanted or otherwise is of no relevance, except to prove the point that they are not fit for purpose. There is an arrogance within these organisations which is startling to behold at times. They should do what they're told - that simple.


The unions at CIE have to be brought into line; the failure not to is a fundamental failure in government policy; instead of bringing Veolia in on Luas as some neo-liberal symbol they should have brought a Willie Walsh type character into to sort out NBRU/SIPTU; they still can and I suspect they will over the next three austerity budgets.

I am surpised you champion the Waterford - Limerick Junction service as it is clearly a relic of the 'boat train era' when the Irish were the actors playing the accession state guest role; in the contemporary phase the ex-pats choice is AER or RYA. Like the WRC this line is another example of political interferance undermining commercial decision making and the taxpayer paying for a service that serves few people.

ppjjobrien wrote: DART Underground is an excellent project and should proceed - the numbers stack up. MN is also an excellent project and should proceed - the numbers aren't as good but they still work - with the two in place and a radically overhauled bus network (arguably more ambitious than the current Network Direct project), combined with one organisation providing the customer interface (all ticketing, info and branding) and we start to have in place something like a modern metropolitan transport system along the lines of london, paris, berlin (or any german, dutch, french, scandanavian, austrian, swiss - need I go on! - city). Bring it on!


Could you list the population density for 1 kilometer either side of the MN route and then complete the same exercise for each new route built in the past decade in the places you have mentioned

Frankfurt
Amersterdam
Paris
Stockholm
Wien
Zurich

Unfortunately for Dublin it does not resemble any of these high density cities where apartment living dominates household formation patterns; the MN route pases through residential housing estates that are predominently on a density of 16 to the acre. How many of these areas have seen bus level services cut in the past couple of years? What interconnector does is it provides a tunnel from Hueston to Spencer Dock; a route that serves most of the highest density employment hubs in the state and a lot of development land in Dublin 8 that will be high density residential as soon as Nama deems appropriate.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Tue May 11, 2010 3:10 pm

With an impressive 4,787 contributions and a strong grasp of both transport, urban development and economics themes, I should tread carefully!

I will agree with you that given an either/or choice, the arguments begin to stack up in favour of DU, as a preference.

I believe that in the case of MN that most of journeys would involve another mode given that MN only serves 3 City Centre stations and that North of Drumcoundra's catchment the population centres are Swords pop 34,000 but on a very low density (massive parking provision required); Ballymun 20,000 and DCU 10,000 total students including part timers; unlike the interconnector which would by virtue of hitting 5 City centre stations involve just one mode; this would be most evident on the Kildare line where a lot of potential passengers are currently driving to D2; also many more who have given up on Dart because it is currently crush loaded.


I wouldn't see a modal shift as a problem and interchanges will go both ways. The key is the overall number of city centre stops, and the overall catchment feeding into them and into interchange stations. The current arrangement is a bunch of lines. I remember reading (can't source it) that the RPA were taken aback by the level of traffic from Heuston to city centre/Connolly and vice versa - it's the power of interchange! I wouldn't see this as the killer for MN per se, and would reiterate the point of how important it is for the airport to be connected to the system.

There is a limited amount government borrowing for projects economists as being essential; the concealment of 30% of GDP by the outgoing Greek Government has meant that all debt must now be 'on balance sheet' under the methodology adopted by the ratings agencies. Given that the state lacks the capacity to pay for Metro North it should be scrapped.


I'll take this at face value, but if PPP projects cannot be left of the PBR balance sheet, then I would wonder if DU can be afforded. If we take media estimates (Arup quoted €1.5bn after a study, media reports €2bn for the tunnel) - my suspicion is that the wider electrification is seperate to this, as is the additional rolling stock.

So, let's be generous - say, they don't need all the stock right away and prices are good - let's put€1.25bn for the tunnel, €1bn for further electrification, and only €450mn for stock - that gives us a project total of €2.7bn. Let's say that's spread over 6 yrs 2012-18 - or €450mn per annum.

Imagine for comparison (or totalling) that a cost in the current climate of €3bn could be achieved for MN on a similar timeframe or €500mn per annum over the same period. Also take into account political emphasis on green/sustainable modes of travel over roads and the completion of the national moterway project - spending on capital projects this year was almost €2.8bn - suddenly you start to see that with a slightly slowed down project timeframe it could become possible to finance this investment from Government resources. I suspect this won't happen, because of the quite public commitment to the PPP process - especially in the case of MN.

The unions at CIE have to be brought into line; the failure not to is a fundamental failure in government policy; instead of bringing Veolia in on Luas as some neo-liberal symbol they should have brought a Willie Walsh type character into to sort out NBRU/SIPTU; they still can and I suspect they will over the next three austerity budgets.

I am surpised you champion the Waterford - Limerick Junction service as it is clearly a relic of the 'boat train era' when the Irish were the actors playing the accession state guest role; in the contemporary phase the ex-pats choice is AER or RYA. Like the WRC this line is another example of political interferance undermining commercial decision making and the taxpayer paying for a service that serves few people.


I think Jo-Public doesn't care how it's run, organisationally, as long as it's run well - in fact they'd rather not be exposed constantly to the internal politics of the providers - this has been happening for my whole life and the travelling public has been held to randsom over and over again. I'd rather not stick with something that's clearly broken, just because of a political standpoint. I'm not in favour of privatisation per se, but Veolia do an excellent job running Luas, and I think most people would rate the performance of Luas favourably in comparison to DB/IE. Incidentally, it's not just the unions - I'm sure they haven't placed a veto on integrated ticketing/information/putting the customer first ...

As for the lesser used lines, I use them as an example to show how IE has never tried to make them work and provides an awful, awful service. Go to their journey planner and try to make any sensible connection on the network - Clonmel-Dublin - Gort-Dublin - Clonmel-Cork - just examples and you'll see that the timetable has been created to make switching as unviable as possible - for barely used lines, I am sure this is not due to traffic jams on the railway! But rather a deliberate attempt to run down the lines, or even worse a reflection of inept transport planning/timetabling within the organisation.

Could you list the population density for 1 kilometer either side of the MN route and then complete the same exercise for each new route built in the past decade in the places you have mentioned

Frankfurt
Amersterdam
Paris
Stockholm
Wien
Zurich

Unfortunately for Dublin it does not resemble any of these high density cities where apartment living dominates household formation patterns; the MN route pases through residential housing estates that are predominently on a density of 16 to the acre. How many of these areas have seen bus level services cut in the past couple of years? What interconnector does is it provides a tunnel from Hueston to Spencer Dock; a route that serves most of the highest density employment hubs in the state and a lot of development land in Dublin 8 that will be high density residential as soon as Nama deems appropriate.


Well, a fascinating task and with time one I'd love to look into! Your point is of course valid that the existing railway lines are a focal point for much existing development, and the planning system has encouraged significantly high densities along these routes - that is an example of planning reacting to provision. My 'planning' argument in favour of MN (not at the expense of DU) is that we need to move to an infrastructure led approach - there is much more scope for intensification along that route (an axis far more preferable to the patchwork sprawl to the west and one which is more intimately connected with key economic drivers such as the airport/DCU etc).

Fingal, for example, has plans to grow Swords to 100,000 - the MN corridor is Dublin key growth and capacity axis for the 21st century - it represents an opportunity to put in place a more sustainable series of medium-high density mixed-use neighbourhoods along a flexible piece of infrastructure which can be scaled up to meet demand as it arises.

Again, this is not a question of MN instead of DU to my mind, but if you pushed me I would accept your argument that DU should happen first. I would also say that fatalism isn't necessary - it may just be a case of MN, yes, but not quite now - delivering to a plan which takes longer to deliver is better than delivering to no plan at all - it's the funny thing about strategic spatial planning - we, as people, are in-built to think in current situation terms - they will not last and we need to think beyond the now and plan positively for the future. Impassioned plea over!
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 4:10 pm

ppjjobrien wrote:
I wouldn't see a modal shift as a problem and interchanges will go both ways. The key is the overall number of city centre stops, and the overall catchment feeding into them and into interchange stations. The current arrangement is a bunch of lines. I remember reading (can't source it) that the RPA were taken aback by the level of traffic from Heuston to city centre/Connolly and vice versa - it's the power of interchange! I wouldn't see this as the killer for MN per se, and would reiterate the point of how important it is for the airport to be connected to the system.


Most of the Luas traffic from Heuston will switch to interconnector; but you are right it was real progress finally providing a link from the busiest mainline rail station in the country to the city centre. I just don't see the passenger numbers to interchange from beyond Drumcoundra in the first place other than from the Airport; most of whom will take any connection to the city centre and take a taxi from there to their end destination. Whether it is Stephens Green or well Stephens Green would make no option but you would feel that Pearse and Heuston with no change would be preferable to O'Connell Street for most visitors

ppjjobrien wrote: I'll take this at face value, but if PPP projects cannot be left of the PBR balance sheet, then I would wonder if DU can be afforded. If we take media estimates (Arup quoted €1.5bn after a study, media reports €2bn for the tunnel) - my suspicion is that the wider electrification is seperate to this, as is the additional rolling stock.

So, let's be generous - say, they don't need all the stock right away and prices are good - let's put€1.25bn for the tunnel, €1bn for further electrification, and only €450mn for stock - that gives us a project total of €2.7bn. Let's say that's spread over 6 yrs 2012-18 - or €450mn per annum.

Imagine for comparison (or totalling) that a cost in the current climate of €3bn could be achieved for MN on a similar timeframe or €500mn per annum over the same period. Also take into account political emphasis on green/sustainable modes of travel over roads and the completion of the national moterway project - spending on capital projects this year was almost €2.8bn - suddenly you start to see that with a slightly slowed down project timeframe it could become possible to finance this investment from Government resources. I suspect this won't happen, because of the quite public commitment to the PPP process - especially in the case of MN.


Irish GDP is roughly €210bn with the deficit being truely horrific for the next three years and about 2.9% in 2014 when it starts to go back to normal levels; €500m would result in a deficit figure being above 3% as each €500m equates to 0.23% of GDP and then there is the annual subvention to the line which would be substantial rasing the cost further.

ppjjobrien wrote: I think Jo-Public doesn't care how it's run, organisationally, as long as it's run well - in fact they'd rather not be exposed constantly to the internal politics of the providers - this has been happening for my whole life and the travelling public has been held to randsom over and over again. I'd rather not stick with something that's clearly broken, just because of a political standpoint. I'm not in favour of privatisation per se, but Veolia do an excellent job running Luas, and I think most people would rate the performance of Luas favourably in comparison to DB/IE. Incidentally, it's not just the unions - I'm sure they haven't placed a veto on integrated ticketing/information/putting the customer first ...


There are some great people in both IE and Veolia but I would point to London where underground rail is run by Transport for London and where there have been some spectacular failures with PPP's not least of which were National Express on the East Coast Mainline who unilaterally withdrew and the tubelines project bought back from Bectel and Ferrovial last Friday. The job of Government is to govern and in relation to NBRU/SIPTU at all CIE group companies a succession of ministers have failed abjectly.

ppjjobrien wrote: As for the lesser used lines, I use them as an example to show how IE has never tried to make them work and provides an awful, awful service. Go to their journey planner and try to make any sensible connection on the network - Clonmel-Dublin - Gort-Dublin - Clonmel-Cork - just examples and you'll see that the timetable has been created to make switching as unviable as possible - for barely used lines, I am sure this is not due to traffic jams on the railway! But rather a deliberate attempt to run down the lines, or even worse a reflection of inept transport planning/timetabling within the organisation.



You list Gort with a population of 3,000 and Clonmel with a population of 15,000 but both are within 30 minutes drive of stations with good service to Dublin; Derry and Letterkenny trade very effectively between each other and don't have a rail link as is the case with Enniskillen with a similar population to Clonmel of just under 14,000 which has no rail link. It is about using taxpayers money in a manner that delivers services only where the population density merits it.

ppjjobrien wrote: Well, a fascinating task and with time one I'd love to look into! Your point is of course valid that the existing railway lines are a focal point for much existing development, and the planning system has encouraged significantly high densities along these routes - that is an example of planning reacting to provision. My 'planning' argument in favour of MN (not at the expense of DU) is that we need to move to an infrastructure led approach - there is much more scope for intensification along that route (an axis far more preferable to the patchwork sprawl to the west and one which is more intimately connected with key economic drivers such as the airport/DCU etc).


The airport can be connected in a short Dart spur for a fraction of the cost.

ppjjobrien wrote: Fingal, for example, has plan to grow Swords to 100,000 - the MN corridor is Dublin key growth and capacity axis for the 21st century - it represents an opportunity to put in place a more sustainable series of medium-high density mixed-use neighbourhoods along a flexible piece of infrastructure which can be scaled up to meet demand as it arises.


Swords was never going to reach anywhere close to 100,000 population; too much of it is already built on with 16 to the acre 3 bed semi's so it is what you would describe as a highly dispersed and nimby rich development pattern; I'd be all in favour of a Dart link from Swords to the Northern line directly extending DART services that currently terminate in Malahide; but if Swords grows at an average even 3,000 people per decade for the next 20 years I will be very surprised. A town of this scale should be connected but claims of 100,000 population projected simply exemplify the flawed predictions that MN relies upon.

ppjjobrien wrote: Again, this is not a question of MN instead of DU to my mind, but if you pushed me I would accept your argument that DU should happen first. I would also say that fatalism isn't necessary - it may just be a case of MN, yes, but not quite now - delivering to a plan which takes longer to deliver is better than delivering to no plan at all - it's the funny thing about strategic spatial planning - we, as people, are in-built to think in current situation terms - they will not last and we need to think beyond the now and plan positively for the future. Impassioned plea over!


I agree with your reasoning of putting MN off; if the airport Dart link fails and if the Northern line post interconnector can't accomodate Swords then clearly it is back to the drawing board. But building an underground under Drumcoundra, Glasnevan and Ballymun will I fear always be doomed to cost more than the loadings that the population density can provide.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Tue May 11, 2010 4:31 pm

PVC King wrote:Irish GDP is roughly €210bn with the deficit being truely horrific for the next three years and about 2.9% in 2014 when it starts to go back to normal levels; €500m would result in a deficit figure being above 3% as each €500m equates to 0.23% of GDP and then there is the annual subvention to the line which would be substantial rasing the cost further.
GDP in 2009 was less than 171bn.
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/qna.pdf

These projects will be paid for over 25-35 years not 6 years.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 4:34 pm

Frank at €2bn cost these projects will never be paid for they will simply sit on the national debt; €2bn would equate to an interest bill of €100m per year every year for a very long time. Some projects merit that ongoing cost and some don't. What was discussed above and below is what if the projects were funded year on year and just how much would be added to the exchequer borrowing requirement. Debt to GDP level is very much in focus and clearly each €2bn added will have implications for the rate of interest that one has to pay as each existing bond expires, is redeemed and then has to be replaced by new securities.


In terms of the erroneous figure itresults from my taking a figure based on an outdated US Dollar conversion rate; it does however understate the point I was making; the annual subsidy to one project would equate to a total of 0.29% of overall GDP a sum equal to 10% of the total Government deficit for all capital and current services for five years when fiscal discipline has never been more critical; unlike coming out of the 1980's we don't have the low wage rates this time so significantly more needs to be invested in higher education. Given that the route is unproven and that there would be further operational losses to be covered by an additional subvention the project is clearly unaffordable. BXD to Drumcoundra in terms of the link ups over a five year period would be a fraction of the cost and link just as many lines.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Tue May 11, 2010 5:55 pm

Most of the Luas traffic from Heuston will switch to interconnector; but you are right it was real progress finally providing a link from the busiest mainline rail station in the country to the city centre. I just don't see the passenger numbers to interchange from beyond Drumcoundra in the first place other than from the Airport; most of whom will take any connection to the city centre and take a taxi from there to their end destination. Whether it is Stephens Green or well Stephens Green would make no option but you would feel that Pearse and Heuston with no change would be preferable to O'Connell Street for most visitors


I agree that many will carry on their journey, but Red-line and Luas serve different City Centre catchments (simplistically North and South City). Pearse Station or St Stephen's Green is a long way to O'Connell St from a transport point of view.

I don't think I'm understanding your point about taxis - I assume you're talking about tourists etc from the airport - otherwise taxis are a very expensive way of finishing your journey. The thing is that until there's a network is in place real interchange is not going to happen so seamlessly and the city starts to become more polycentric in terms of how it works. Cologne is a smaller city than Dublin and is served by tram/underground lines (which are interoperable) and interchange between bus, tram, u-bahn is normal - london, paris, berlin etc all achieve this - we don't have this culture among our providers which is reinforced by the ticketing system. I strongly suspect that they just don't get it and need to go!

Irish GDP is roughly €210bn with the deficit being truely horrific for the next three years and about 2.9% in 2014 when it starts to go back to normal levels; €500m would result in a deficit figure being above 3% as each €500m equates to 0.23% of GDP and then there is the annual subvention to the line which would be substantial rasing the cost further.


It's not where I was going with this and your argument seems to work against DART Underground just as much. My point was that even if capital spending were reduced it would still be possible. Capital spending is important to the economy and has a multiplier effect in the short run and and investment return in the long run. The government will continue to invest and its a matter of choice regarding allocations.

There are some great people in both IE and Veolia but I would point to London where underground rail is run by Transport for London and where there have been some spectacular failures with PPP's not least of which were National Express on the East Coast Mainline who unilaterally withdrew and the tubelines project bought back from Bectel and Ferrovial last Friday. The job of Government is to govern and in relation to NBRU/SIPTU at all CIE group companies a succession of ministers have failed abjectly.


The PPP model (I'm not a fan) failed spectacularly in relation to London Underground- accepted.

however, TfL sub-contracts bus operations to operators, which are all branded TfL (London Buses - bright red busses), and the bus network has performed extremely well in (with Ken Livingstone's support). Prob most close to the RPA-Veolia model.

National Express east coast was a franchise which failed, but to be fair to them, they were supposed to pay hundreds of millions back to the Government, but then the economy changed. The service continued (and improved while they ran it) and the Government then took it over - Jo Public barely noticed - I have no problem with that necessarily.

My point throughout is that I don't care how it's run per se. I want an excellent coherent service which is about the journeys that I and others make and not about the internal machinations of organisations that are systemically broken. The CIE group will of course have good people in it, but the organisation is broken and does not have passengers at the core of what they do. I'm not promoting Veolia, but I don't recall reading endless pages about the internal workings of Veolia, I just know that Luas is clean, safe, efficient and convenient - not sure I can apply the same observations to DB/IE? I very much agree with you that this is a failure of political will to emasculate the unions in this regard. I think breaking up the organisations would be ideal, but I suspect 'creeping privatisation' or the threat of may ultimately be the thing which makes them start to put the customer first.

In theory the NTA should be starting with the transport system and passengers and working back from that ... in practice, I fear it's going to be a huge disappointment pandering to the existing status quo - sigh.

You list Gort with a population of 3,000 and Clonmel with a population of 15,000 but both are within 30 minutes drive of stations with good service to Dublin; Derry and Letterkenny trade very effectively between each other and don't have a rail link as is the case with Enniskillen with a similar population to Clonmel of just under 14,000 which has no rail link. It is about using taxpayers money in a manner that delivers services only where the population density merits it.


Examples to prove a point. It's true of the timetabling on the recent WRC - Ennis is a bigger example than Gort - if it's there and your running services, it should be used to serve passengers (and freight if there's any demand), and to feed other services. That IE should be allowed to deliberately (or through incredulous ineptness) be allowed to run services that seem to deliberately not connect with other services, thus undermining their usefulness, is amazing to me and I can't see how anyone can defend deliberately running a bad service!

The airport can be connected in a short Dart spur for a fraction of the cost.

Not to labour the point but, MN is about a corridor, not a single connection point. Plus, I'm not sure a spur into that stretch of the northern line that carries other DART services, intercity and commuter services doesn't just programme in capacity constraints in the future.

Swords was never going to reach anywhere close to 100,000 population; too much of it is already built on with 16 to the acre 3 bed semi's so it is what you would describe as a highly dispersed and nimby rich development pattern; I'd be all in favour of a Dart link from Swords to the Northern line directly extending DART services that currently terminate in Malahide; but if Swords grows at an average even 3,000 people per decade for the next 20 years I will be very surprised. A town of this scale should be connected but claims of 100,000 population projected simply exemplify the flawed predictions that MN relies upon.


Swords was an example - the figure below shows just how much housing was delivered during the boom:

There will be significant housing demand in the future. CSO forecasts imply something like 750,000 additional people living in the the GDA by 2026 over 2011 (-250,000 if you strip away ALL migration to Ireland from outside). With an average household size of 2.8 (and declining), this implies a housing requirement of something like 175,000 units or just shy of 12,000 per annum. This brings us back to the lower end of the range delivered during the Celtic Tiger years. My fear is that allowing this need to be loosely distributed all over the GDA will just reinforce the unsustainable form which has been delivered with gusto outside of the better work occurring within the Dublin authorities (higher densities within more sustainable communities have been achieved). These need to be supported by infrastructure and made viable by supply side constraint in less sustainable locations. Development levies can then be used to support schemes such as DU or MN.

The advantage of this northern corridor is in its future capacity - and the North is better placed to accept further growth that the south (we've hit the mountains!), the west - it's already and unsustainable messy, shapeless sprawl. Growth northwards has been amazingly subdued and represents a realistic growth corridor which could pull a lot of uses together.

I agree with your reasoning of putting MN off; if the airport Dart link fails and if the Northern line post interconnector can't accomodate Swords then clearly it is back to the drawing board. But building an underground under Drumcoundra, Glasnevan and Ballymun will I fear always be doomed to cost more than the loadings that the population density can provide.


An amount of me suspects that you may well be right and the future may not be rosy for MN. I think a DART spur would be a weak second for the airport and wouldn't give the City the room for growth it will need in the next 20yrs and beyond.

Frank's point is that these project will (or could) be paid for over a very long period is valid and you seem to be assuming that other elements of the cost of running the country won't be cut instead (and/or as well). I still believe both are deliverable if the timeframe is slowed down. I get the impression you just don't like MN!!! As an aside we were paying about hundreds of million per junction upgrade on the M50 and no one blinked an eye ... there's something very particular about public transport that seems to get people going and no one seems to question whether or not there is a need/demand/justification for (say) the level to which the Atlantic Corridor is being built out - seems to be a mix of Motorway/Dual Carriageway - seems excessive when 2+1 might have done ... a parting thought - I need to eat!
Attachments
ousing completions.jpg
ousing completions.jpg (64.12 KiB) Viewed 3899 times
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby cgcsb » Tue May 11, 2010 6:30 pm

how about instead of that, we can four track the northern line to Drogheda, but instead of putting the new tracks next to the current ones(probably not possible), move them a few KM west and provide a station at the airport, the new tracks should continue towards heuston instead of Connolly, have a small underground section under Finglas, connect to the currently dissused liffey junction and on to Heuston via the Pheonix park tunnell. The new tracks could be very high spec, almost entirely overground through open country, and trains could hit their max speed (200km/h) for most of their journey. This would give us a main line rail connection to the countries main airport and would allow for a new direct service: Cork-Limerick Junction-Portarlington-Dublin Heuston-Dublin Airport-Dundalk-Belfast. This would free up the current Northern line from Drogheda to the city centre for as many DARTs as ya like. Also it would mean that around 4million people would be within 10km to a train station that could take them to either the countries largest airport or the city centre of either of Ireland's 3 metropolitain areas. journey times between Airport and Heuston could be around 10 minutes, and around 18 mins to Drogheda, also about 15 mins would be cut off the Belfast-Dublin journey. Heuston would have more capacity because Cork trains would terminate in Belfast instead of Heuston and Belfast trains would terminate in Cork instead of Heuston. A new depot could be constructed near the airport to allow Galway and Limerick trains to terminate at the airport instead of the city centre, this frees up more terminal capacity in the city centre, and allows most people in Ireland to access the airport without changing in the city centre. The extra capacity on the Northern line might make the interconnector unecissary because the lack of Belfast trains terminating in Connolly would reduce the bottle neck. Metro would no longer be required, Swords could be served by express feeder busses to the airport, or Malahide, Drumcondra already has a station, Ballymun and DCU should have the QBC improved to actual QBC standard, not a glorified bus lane.
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby shytalk » Tue May 11, 2010 6:55 pm

PVC King wrote:It does in environmental terms but in financial terms it doesn't assuming that the system moves to weekly, monthly and annual season tickets priced on a zoned basis. By loading more debt on to the exchequer Metro North will increase borrowing costs as will the interconnector; but at least the interconnector delivers an additional 65m p.a.x. on proven existing transport corridors.

The days of raising money at Bund plus 25 basis points or 3.25% are gone and rates will only come down when it is clearly demonstrated that the public finances are under control.

The interconnector will have virtually no running costs as the majority of the rolling stock already exists as do all but 5 stations plus bolt ons; in contrast Metro North involves a huge amount of guesswork as none of the route is proven and all stations excluding Stephens Green would be additional. Add to that the fact that MN will be accompanied by a tied in operational contract which will probably be over-spec'd and difficult to scale back if the 3 bed semi's perform as normal and it constitutes real potential for a serious black hole for cash for decades to come.


'The interconnector will have virtually no running costs as the majority of the rolling stock already exists'



lol more fantasies. There's a 700million euro tender out for rolling stock for the IC

As has been pointed out several times. the MN capital will come form the EIB at 5%
The architecture of an infrastructure bond is being constructed at this moment. The NTMA
has said it will put approx 10 billion into that. That will also be at 5% interest.

usual nonsense from pvcking



European backing for Dublin Metro
Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:10

The European Investment Bank's Board of Directors has given its approval in principle for a €500m loan for the Dublin Metro PPP project.

'The Metro North project represents a significant contribution to sustainable urban transport in the greater Dublin area and will be the backbone for a future integrated public transport network in the Irish capital.


'The European Investment Bank looks forward to working closely with the Irish authorities and the bidders involved in the Dublin Metro project' said Plutarchos Sakellaris, European Investment Bank Vice President responsible for Ireland.
shytalk
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 7:25 pm

New Irish housing completions may fall below 10,000 in 2011;
By Finfacts Team
Jan 19, 2010 - 2:26:47 PM
Goodbody Stockbrokers chief economist, Dermot O'Leary, says new Irish housing completions may fall below 10,00 in 2011, compared with almost 90,000 in 2006

Housing output down another 50% in 2009…

The major contributory factor in the severity of the recession in Ireland is the construction sector in general and specifically the residential sector. Final data today confirmed the extent of the collapse in housing output in Ireland in 2009. There were 26,820 house completions in Ireland, representing a decline of 48% yoy. At the peak in 2006, almost 90,000 units were completed. Over the past three years, we estimate housing alone has knocked 8% off the level of GDP (9% of GNP).

One way of tracking the extent of the housing boom and subsequent bust is to compare the level of completions relative to the population. At the peak in 2006, Ireland was building 21 housing units per 1000 of its population, when the European average was 5.6. In 2009, Irish completions amounted to 5.8 units per 1000, whereas the European average is estimated to be less than 4. Ireland should drop below the European average in 2010 (see chart).

Output has further to fall - Irish house completions will fall sharply again in 2010. Housing commencements fell by 63% in the first ten months of 2009, with housing starts on larger scheme developments down by 83% over the same time period. Tighter credit conditions continue to be an issue for both developers and potential homeowners, but there is also a need to curtail new supply until the vacant housing stock is reduced. We expect 12,000 units completed in 2010 and this could go below 10,000 in 2011.


That graph you posted above is lazy in the extreme and about as relevant as the vast majority of the figures which underpin the Metro; see the true picture above. In any event even when the market was out of control the maximum completion rate across the County of Fingal was about 9,000 units and that included the much larger development area such of Blanchardstown which now stretches from Castleknock to the South Meath Fringe. In addition there was significant development at Malahide, Donabate/Portrane, Rush/Lusk, Skerries and Balbriggan not to mention the estates in Fingal that feed off Leixlip and Ashtown. In the basis that 90,000 houses were built in Ireland in 2006 and of these 6,000 were built in Fingal it is likely that 1,100 houses will be built across the entire county; except that one off houses now make up 25% of completions and you don't build those in Swords. Taking that on todays figures and you are talking about 733 houses across the entire borough; Swords may get 200 houses a year.

I agree that many will carry on their journey, but Red-line and Luas serve different City Centre catchments (simplistically North and South City). Pearse Station or St Stephen's Green is a long way to O'Connell St from a transport point of view.

I don't think I'm understanding your point about taxis - I assume you're talking about tourists etc from the airport - otherwise taxis are a very expensive way of finishing your journey. The thing is that until there's a network is in place real interchange is not going to happen so seamlessly and the city starts to become more polycentric in terms of how it works. Cologne is a smaller city than Dublin and is served by tram/underground lines (which are interoperable) and interchange between bus, tram, u-bahn is normal - london, paris, berlin etc all achieve this - we don't have this culture among our providers which is reinforced by the ticketing system. I strongly suspect that they just don't get it and need to go!


I live 200m from Paddington where the Heathrow Express terminates; it is my local shop; you see very few people descending the stairs and escalators with cases; the vast bulk of them take the Express into Paddington and then for a modest fare take a taxi to Mayfair or the City or wherever their destination is. Of course you see people who take the Piccadilly line into London and change but few of them have cases and few of them would complain if they had to take a bus for 30 mins into Dublin CC versus the 1 hour and 3 minutes the tube takes to Oxford Circus (considered to be the most central point). If a Dart extension were built that would be real progress as it would hit Connolly 18 mins Spencer Dock for Connolly and the additional 2 stops to Stephens Green would take max 25 mins.

It's not where I was going with this and your argument seems to work against DART Underground just as much. My point was that even if capital spending were reduced it would still be possible. Capital spending is important to the economy and has a multiplier effect in the short run and and investment return in the long run. The government will continue to invest and its a matter of choice regarding allocations.


It does and the real worry is that when the either or decision gets made and it is either or because the combined inpact on borrowing would add roughly a billion to the EBR for about 5 years; that they approve MN and do not approve the interconnector on the basis of their complete loathing of SIPTU/NBRU and addiction to PPPs.

The PPP model (I'm not a fan) failed spectacularly in relation to London Underground- accepted.

however, TfL sub-contracts bus operations to operators, which are all branded TfL (London Buses - bright red busses), and the bus network has performed extremely well in (with Ken Livingstone's support). Prob most close to the RPA-Veolia model.


First Group run the aircoach service in Dublin and do a great job; rail is different as the road space is government controlled; allthey need to do are paint bus lanes and it is regulated; other than the UK I have not visited any European country which privatised rail; SNCF provide a great service when they are not on strike and D-Bahn would wipe the floor with Veolia.

Examples to prove a point. It's true of the timetabling on the recent WRC - Ennis is a bigger example than Gort - if it's there and your running services, it should be used to serve passengers (and freight if there's any demand), and to feed other services. That IE should be allowed to deliberately (or through incredulous ineptness) be allowed to run services that seem to deliberately not connect with other services, thus undermining their usefulness, is amazing to me and I can't see how anyone can defend deliberately running a bad service!


Ennis has a number of services that take about 3 hours mush of it down to the indirect Limerick Junction Route being longer; not ideal but driving the 145 mile journey wouldn't take much less once you factor in Dublin City traffic. There is room for improvement over time.

Not to labour the point but, MN is about a corridor, not a single connection point. Plus, I'm not sure a spur into that stretch of the northern line that carries other DART services, intercity and commuter services doesn't just programme in capacity constraints in the future.


Of the 19 stations on the line and excluding the City Centre which is presumbly either the destination or an interchange; then only 4 passenger origin stations seem to have any real potential to give decent passenger numbers (Drumcoundra is served by the Maynooth line) namely DCU and Ballymun which could just as easily be served by a Luas which is going to Parnell Sq anyway; which leaves the Airport and Swords. The airport has been verified as IE as being doable and extending the Malahide service to Swords would actually reduce pressure on the line by meaning that trains cross tracks at Swords and not Malahide. Metro North is not required to acheive all but a link from Ballymun to Swords via the airport. There is no Bus service from Ballymun to the Airport indicating no demand and Dublin Bus would have passenger data for the Airport Swords loadings.

Swords was an example - the figure below shows just how much housing was delivered during the boom:

There will be significant housing demand in the future. CSO forecasts imply something like 750,000 additional people living in the the GDA by 2026 over 2011 (-250,000 if you strip away ALL migration to Ireland from outside). With an average household size of 2.8 (and declining), this implies a housing requirement of something like 175,000 units or just shy of 12,000 per annum. This brings us back to the lower end of the range delivered during the Celtic Tiger years. My fear is that allowing this need to be loosely distributed all over the GDA will just reinforce the unsustainable form which has been delivered with gusto outside of the better work occurring within the Dublin authorities (higher densities within more sustainable communities have been achieved). These need to be supported by infrastructure and made viable by supply side constraint in less sustainable locations. Development levies can then be used to support schemes such as DU or MN.

The advantage of this northern corridor is in its future capacity - and the North is better placed to accept further growth that the south (we've hit the mountains!), the west - it's already and unsustainable messy, shapeless sprawl. Growth northwards has been amazingly subdued and represents a realistic growth corridor which could pull a lot of uses together.



I'll take it that the demographic forecasts date from the 2006 Census; the same year Anglo Irish Bank's profits peaked. Population growth will be very modest for the next 10-15 years as the accession state population goes elsewhere with their families. Wild forecasts based on demographics that weren't sustainable led to a banking bust that will slow the economy down for years. With the IDA's help growth of 3% will be just about acheivable.

The logical place to develop is along the four interconnector corridors and the Luas extensions. It is a long way to the twelve pins mountains if you go west.


An amount of me suspects that you may well be right and the future may not be rosy for MN. I think a DART spur would be a weak second for the airport and wouldn't give the City the room for growth it will need in the next 20yrs and beyond.

Frank's point is that these project will (or could) be paid for over a very long period is valid and you seem to be assuming that other elements of the cost of running the country won't be cut instead (and/or as well). I still believe both are deliverable if the timeframe is slowed down. I get the impression you just don't like MN!!! As an aside we were paying about hundreds of million per junction upgrade on the M50 and no one blinked an eye ... there's something very particular about public transport that seems to get people going and no one seems to question whether or not there is a need/demand/justification for (say) the level to which the Atlantic Corridor is being built out - seems to be a mix of Motorway/Dual Carriageway - seems excessive when 2+1 might have done ... a parting thought - I need to eat!


I find the €1bn Tuam Motorway just as offensive as Metro North; pouring concrete for the sake of it in both cases.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 7:31 pm

shytalk wrote:'The interconnector will have virtually no running costs as the majority of the rolling stock already exists'



lol more fantasies. There's a 700million euro tender out for rolling stock for the IC

As has been pointed out several times. the MN capital will come form the EIB at 5%
The architecture of an infrastructure bond is being constructed at this moment. The NTMA
has said it will put approx 10 billion into that. That will also be at 5% interest.

usual nonsense from pvcking



European backing for Dublin Metro
Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:10

The European Investment Bank's Board of Directors has given its approval in principle for a €500m loan for the Dublin Metro PPP project.

'The Metro North project represents a significant contribution to sustainable urban transport in the greater Dublin area and will be the backbone for a future integrated public transport network in the Irish capital.


'The European Investment Bank looks forward to working closely with the Irish authorities and the bidders involved in the Dublin Metro project' said Plutarchos Sakellaris, European Investment Bank Vice President responsible for Ireland.


As they said they would consider funding a €1bn Motorway to Tuam I'm sure they haven't looked at it in too much detail. I note the total project value is still missing as is the planning consent.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby shytalk » Tue May 11, 2010 7:36 pm

pvcking. You asserted above that:

'The interconnector will have virtually no running costs as the majority of the rolling stock already exists'

How does that fit with the 700million tender that IE has out for rolling stock for the IC?

any chance of an answer?

It looks to me that you're a total bluffer and fantasist.
shytalk
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 7:42 pm

That 700m will comprise rolling stock for the wider network which if you hadn't noticed is crush loaded. The value of the current rolling stock of the fleet would if ordered today and not valued at depreciated levels be higher. In any event the rolling stock on the Kildare line is aged as is much of the stock on the Maynooth line; given that completion wouldn't be for 8 years much of the DART fleet will be over 30 years old at that stage.


In terms of running costs they will be minimal as there are only 5 stations and all of these will be busy enough to attract significant poster advertising and retail kiosk opportunites. Not a massive running cost in operational terms.

I further note the approval is approval in principal; bankers are political beasts, they only say no when they have to.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby shytalk » Tue May 11, 2010 7:46 pm

PVC King wrote:That 700m will comprise rolling stock for the wider network which if you hadn't noticed is crush loaded. The value of the current rolling stock of the fleet would if ordered today and not valued at depreciated levels be higher. In terms of running costs they will be minimal as there are only 5 stations and all of these will be busy enough to attract significant poster advertising and retail kiosk opportunites.

I further note the approval is approval in principal; bankers are political beasts, they only say no when they have to.

utter tripe.

most of that 700m is for the DART extension which will more than treble in capacity.

As already asked, why did you assert that there was no need for increased rolling stock?
when the opposite is the case.
As pointed out you are a complete bluffer and fantasist.
shytalk
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 7:53 pm

Accross the wider the network the majority of stock does exist following additions post 2004; a lot of it will be replaced but would have been replaced anyway. The Maynooth line and Kildare lines were extensively added as commuter routes in the early 1990's the stock is more or less 20 years old anyway. How do you know the tenders don't have break options and aren't based on ademand led approach?

For you to call me a bluffer and a fantasist is rich coming from someone who claimed to know more about economics than the ex-chair of Goldman Sachs Int and BP. You are incapable of fluid thought and I'd imagine you have never negotiated a structured agreement of any kind.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby shytalk » Tue May 11, 2010 8:03 pm

pvcking you asseted above that there would be no rolling stock costs for the IC.

In fact, as the capacity of the DART system will more than treble a huge expense is involved here.
There is a 700million tender already out for this rolling stock

pvcking, how does this square with your assertion that no rolling stock is required?

Are you capable of giving a straight answer to a straught question?

It's not a complicated question.

I'll repeat it. Why did you assert that no rolling stock was required when700million was earmarked for this RS?

Another question is why do you repeatedly plaster in irrelevant and meaningless psuedo jargon when you are questioned on the inventions you persistently resort to to bolster your eccentic views?

It does look as if you are a bluffer and psuedo expert fantasist.
shytalk
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 8:18 pm

You have serious communication issues and for the the record have never stated what you do professionally; that is assuming you have one but I'd doubt its an economist as to claim you knew more than the ex Chair of Goldman Sachs Int and BP who just happens to be Irish, youngest ever Attorney General and EEC Commisioner who liberalised a transport market through the open skies agreement; failure to read anything and then make personal attacks is just typical of you.

Statement 2 parts

Part 1 - Rolling stock tender is smaller than existing rolling stock on Dart lines and Maynooth and Kildare lines much of which will be 25 years old when the interconnector completes and would have been replaced anyway on a like for like basis in the absence of the Interconnector; agreements can involve orders in 2 phases -order certain and order cum break option. Metro North has no rolling stock and to deliver 5 minute frequencies that will require a lot of rolling stock.

Part 2 - 5 stations and a short track; are you saying that this section will be expensive to run and will be unable to leverage all the existing stations on the network?

I have never claimed to be any kind of transport economist or expert; but for the record transport economists are actually called planners the other are general economists who claim to specialise in transport; judging by Sean Barrett and his inability to grasp the bigger picture you could be quite good as one if you listened to people instead of ranting at every possible opoortunity.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby neutral » Tue May 11, 2010 9:38 pm

As they said they would consider funding a €1bn Motorway to Tuam I'm sure they haven't looked at it in too much detail. I note the total project value is still missing as is the planning consent.

You really have got it in for MN with all your stats,but please spare a though for us poor taxpayers who would love to see a nice metro route to the airport and city in return for some money instead of bailing out the banks and I do live along the proposed route and the much talked about Luas route to the airport was ruled out due to lack of road space on the way to the airport.
neutral
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland