Dublin Metro

Home Forums Ireland Dublin Metro

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • Author
    • #706007

      Reading in Sunday newspapers about the much vaunted Metro. New budget €3bn.
      Seamus Brennan wants the line totally underground from St Stephens Green to Royal Canal and considering alignments either to Pearse or Tara St stations. If they’re undergrounding in that region… does this open up the possibilty of undergrounding Butt Bridge, or should it stay as is???

    • #724469

      Hope so, there is an announcement expected this week to be made on this one. Also talk of the boring machines on Port Tunnel to be used on Metro… makes sense!

      Also talk of state owning line but all profits from tickets to go to private company/consortium, who will design, build and run the system for 30 years.. I bags the Japanese, to be in there!

    • #724470

      I think the Japanese actually came to the Government a few years ago (pre Luas) and OFFERED to build/design the whole thing – charge what they like then hand it over sometime in the future. What was so bad about that plan then, and so good about it now?!?

      I hope the Japanese get to do it – assuming any similarities to their own rail networks!

      And using the Port Tunnell Machine – that sounds way too efficient… is this Ireland?

    • #724471

      Underground!!!!! But we’ll all get mugged and beaten up by shadowy criminals!!!! Are you mad????

      fj public

    • #724472

      yeah – cos the streets are so safe on de north side

    • #724473
      J. Seerski

      You are more likely to be mugged south of the river, darling.

    • #724474

      On the possibility of undergrounding Butt Bridge (the Loop Line Bridge I take it), it is a fine piece of industrial archeaology dating from the late 19th Centruy and as such, should have a preservation order attached.

    • #724475

      Yeah, but just take the tacky ads off it…

    • #724476

      I guess it blocking the view east from O’Connell bridge wouldn’t be so bad if it was tarted up a bit, given some lighting scheme and defrocked of it’s ads.

    • #724477

      Can they take the ads off? I think there is a legal requirement to shield the bridge so as not to frighten passing horses! This was a standard requirement of railway legislation in the last 2 decades of the 19th Century. Note the bridges along the Maynooth line from Connolly Station to Drumcondra Road and that over the Lower Glanmire Road in Cork. Similar restrictions apply.

    • #724478

      Haha! I suppose CIE need any excuse they can get.
      They could always go Vegas/Times Sq Style and dazzle all of Dublin with a snazzy video (widescreen too!) wall.

    • #724479

      I made calls on the Loop Line Bridge thing but then became lazy again. I’ve access to an excellent photo of how it would look without the ads (a lot bloody better).

      If anyone wants to make calls here are some people to talk to:
      Group Secretary at Houstan Station (top person)
      Chairman at Tara Street – John Lynch
      Architects Office on the North Wall – John Clancy
      Advertisements placed by – Viacom

      I started, but just never followed through. The impression I got was that the issue had been brought up in the past, but had always just faded away again. I think they know that someday the ads will have to come down. They’re not on for losing all ads on all bridges, but the Loop Line is a possibility. It makes a lot of money that pays for our trains…

      The thing to remember is that it’s mostly the side ads that do the damage. The Guinness ad could stay and look ok, but the little “stuck on willy-nilly” ads to each side are what really drags it down.


    • #724480

      I did read an article in the Sunday Times aaaages ago (possibly years) with the plans to underground that bit of the line – so obviously it was on the table at some point in the not too distant past – maybe now is the right time to start making noises again!

    • #724481

      Interesting? From Sunday Indo, 23/03/03

      Two port tunnels is still a cheaper option than a metro system


      THE shocking thing about the cost of large infrastructural projects in Ireland is that the public isn’t shocked anymore.

      No one seems to want to call a halt to the dramatic and steady escalation in project prices that has left the biggest and most essential pieces of national infrastructure at the mercy of developers and construction consultants, and unprotected from exploitation by plainly opportunist property owners who are determined to squeeze the last million every chance they get.

      The trend has been pretty obvious in Dublin’s Luas light rail system, which, at the start, was expected to cost a relatively modest €400m, but, by the time it’s due to be finished, will set the taxpayer back more than double the amount originally thought.

      Rather than deal with the problem head-on, the city’s newest project, the proposed half-underground metro that will link Dublin city centre to Dublin airport, has opted instead to turn the policy of project underestimation on its head.

      Its promoters, the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA), headed by ex-IDA boss Padraic White, appear to have taken the Luas experience to heart and have pitched estimated costs so high so that if and when the project ever gets finished, it won’t – or shouldn’t – disappoint.

      If there is any logic to this position, it reflects the quite bizarre unpredictability of large-scale construction in Dublin. Mr White told his story to Pat Kenny on an RTE radio programme and it bears

      repetition. Setting out his position, Padraic White identified the “big difference” between a large project in Dublin and elsewhere in the world is “the property costs and the huge uncertainty”.

      If you are going to estimate costs in Dublin, he argued, you have to take on board the fact everything will be more expensive than you think.

      He also claimed that in other places around the world it “suits” many cities to underprice a project.

      “We did the opposite,” he declared. Mr White and his RPA colleagues presented the projected ‘cost’ of the metro a month or so back to a Cabinet transport sub-committee chaired by the Taoiseach himself. Mr Ahern and the other sub-committee members were given a price of €4.8bn.

      What’s not generally known is whether the Taoiseach was told the detail that Pat Kenny was? If he was, it must have been a fascinating meeting because the construction costs of the metro, we now discover, were not €4.8bn, they are nearer €1.7bn.

      And this latter figure even includes property acquisition as well as design and management and project management fees.

      The balance of €3.1bn – two-thirds the total project cost – are accounted for by “insurance and risk costs and VAT”, Mr White told RTE. Insurance and prudential risk, he reckoned, accounts for a staggering €1bn of the total costs.

      “Construction in Ireland is more expensive,” the chairman of the RPA said.

      But it’s clearly nothing like as expensive as the cost of insurance for a venture that will take up to nine years to build, and during which time, only four or five years will be spent actually building or tunnelling.

      Insisting that the “record of major urban transport projects is that they come in at twice the original cost”, Padraic White went on to say that the €4.8bn figure which he showed the Taoiseach includes massive cost escalation. If the metro was being paid for today it would cost only €3.3bn.

      That being so, the escalation costs alone of the metro project are an astonishing €1.5bn – which seems hard to justify.

      So it would appear that the real beneficiaries of the metro will be the construction consultants (who, contrary to international experience, are going to be employed several years before actual work gets under way) and the companies who carry the insurance risk. Moreover, if Padraic White’s estimate of €1.7bn for the cost of actually building the system is close to the mark, it bears unflattering comparison with the cost of the Port Tunnel which is now nearing completion and, even escalated as it is, is only costing €625m.

      In other words it would be possible to build two port tunnels for less than it would cost to build the metro. And the cost of the port tunnel comes with the ‘risk’ costs attached.

    • #724482
      DARA H

      From the ‘Railway Gazette International’ magazine: –

      “TGV Heads East
      Civil works are now well underway on the first 300km of new line between Paris and Strasbourg, due to open in 2007 when the best journey time between the two cities will be cut by almost half. A year after the formal start of construction, Jean-Paul Masse reports on progress with the first high speed line project to be directly managed by infrastructure authority RFF. Projected to carry 5 million passengers a year, the line offers a lower rate of return than earlier schemes, but its strategic importance means that government bodies at European, national, regional and local level are providing around 75% of the anticipated 3·1bn cost”

      So, am i right in interpreting above – the French fully intend on building 300Km of special high speed line (proper high speed i.e. over 150MPH), starting now and finishing by 2007 and all for 3.1bn???

      If Irish compainies can’t built for the cost tyeh give – fire them and give it to someone that can. If that means getting lots of foreign comapnies (including labourers etc) to do it – fine. There’s nowhere else in industry or business / administration / services etc. that gets away with renaging on contracts by not delivering on time or price as seems to be the standard procedure here.

    • #724483
      Paul Clerkin

      From the Sunday Business Post

      Construction of Madrid metro shows up shortcomings in Dublin’s plan

      25/05/03 00:00

      By Niamh Connolly

      The Madrid metro, which was constructed for a fraction of the proposed e4.8 billion cost of the Dublin metro, required no environmental impact assessment (EIS), no planning permission and no public consultation, according to a new study.

      Early findings from the study of the Madrid metro indicated that two years could be shaved off the time needed to complete the Dublin metro project if Spanish legislation for public infrastructural projects applied here.

      The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and officials from the Department ofTransport are now drawing up a report on the Madrid experience for the Minister for Transport, Seamus Brennan.

      Spanish law requires no planning permission or EIS for tunnelling more than ten metres below the surface, reducing costly and lengthy compensation negotiations.

      The president of the Metro de Madrid, Manuel Melis Maynar, has been invited to give a presentation on the project to a cabinet committee and to the joint Oireachtas committee.

      A 40-kilometre Madrid metro line which opened last month cost e46 million per kilometre to build. In comparison, Dublin’s projected construction cost is e150 million per kilometre.This figure rises to e417 million per kilometre when design, property compensation and inflation are taken into account.

      Spanish regulations mean that if problems are encountered during tunnelling,the direction of the tunnel can be changed without planning permission, reducing time and costs.

      Tunnelling work in Madrid is carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whereas construction work in this country is limited, which means expensive machinery is lying idle for long periods.

      Last week, the Dublin Metro Group (DMG) told the Joint Oireachtas Committee onTransportthat a metrofrom St Stephen’s Green to Dublin Airport could be built for e45 million per kilometre, about the same as Madrid’s costs. The DMG, headed by transport consultant Cormac Rabbitte, said it could design and build the project for e600 million if it received a further e100 million in state aid to operate the metro for 30 years.

      Rabbitte believes that because virtually all the route is underground, compensation would total just e3 million for some 600 properties, most of which are businesses.

      The DMG was precluded under pre-qualification criteria from making any preliminary expression of interest to theRPA. However,theRPA said it remained open to applications from interested parties.

    • #724484

      I say change the law here, even if it takes a referendum, (Cost of referendum would be less than the cost of compensation to landowners and cost of delays). We need the metro ASAP at about not much more than MAdrid have paid. Let this be a test for the future!!

    • #724485

      I don’t think people should be allowed to hold up something that is vital for the city – what an improvement in the standard of life in the city if we have a good metro.

      I’d say change the law first – though that said, its unlikely with the spineless politicans we have. You couldn’t seriously expect them to take a brave move as this.

    • #724486

      I thought they were considering it? Bertie and Shea have been making noises abouit it recently…tested the focus groups no doubt.

      I personally don’t see the problem in tunnelling under the city…although the Marino residents might have a thing or two to say. I wouldn’t be in favour of a complete scrapping of EIS …. I am sure there are certain times when they are necessary.

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News