admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@markpb wrote:
Do you not see any advantage in building a fully segregated metro system that can run trams as often as needed, as long as needed and without any interference from bad driving, congestion, pedestrian conflict, parades or emergency services requiring access to nearby buildings? .
Agreed Metro North is better than Luas in engineering terms; you could however say that instead of buying new trains for use on the Dublin to Cork rail line that they should have built a new TGV spec line. Everything comes back to annual subvention cost per passenger and if the Luas Section serves Stephens Green to Ballymun it would be an investment that was just about proportionate in terms of balancing ridership and cost.
@markpb wrote:
What you’re suggesting is adding even more trains to an already over-crowded northern line operated by a very poor company. You’re also suggesting running even more on-street trams which will have more in common with the congested and slow red line than the green line which benefits from an existing right of way. .
I disagree that Irish Rail are a poor company they have in recent years when investments were made in renovating dilapidated track on a large scale for the first time since the 1920’s delivered a more reliable service in line with a more reliable network. I would point to Frankfurt where the on street tram network is extensive and heavily used; trams are inappropriate for journeys of over 10kms but used as part of an intergrated system they play a very useful role.
@markpb wrote:
The system you propose is also limited in it’s expansion possibilities so even if densities improves to the levels you require, the trams can’t be lengthened nor the frequencies increased because of the impact on other street traffic..
The trams will only serve small sections of population such as Ballymun to the existing Red and Green lines. Tallaght would get a Dart connection and at existing frequencies of 3-4 minutes at peak Luas is working well below its operating capacity if continental comparison is used. The only capacity constraint Luas has always been what the Dublin Chamber of Commerce imposes on it; Dawson Street was clearly a step too far.
@markpb wrote:
Finally, I’m not sure how Irish Rail planned on bringing a heavy rail line above ground into the airport without massive conflicts with the M1, R132 and the airport’s ground transportation system. The station would either be nowhere near the terminal buildings (ala CDG1) or a tunnel would have to be dug to get it underneath the buildings which would have huge cost. Perhaps the whole line from east of the M1 to the terminal would have to be tunnelled and since most of the cost of tunnelling is the entry points, it would be hugely expensive for the distance covered.
The cost of €400m by Irish Rail clearly factors in the engineering challenges of reaching Dublin Airport; the cost of the Pace extension is €160m for a 7.5kms extension; the distance from Dublin Airport to the existing Northern line is about 6.5kms in a line that passes south of the carpark complex between Swords Road and the M1; add a kilometre for curves and you have the same length of line as Pace but a budget that is 2.5 times the scale. Taking the distances considered acceptable at Heathrow to make terminals 1 and 3 from Heathrow Central and a walk from the end of Terminal 2 to Terminal 1 are extremely modest. In terms of the buildings all you have down there are the redundant Air-Cargo terminals built in 1987 which are hopelessly dated and Air Lingus don’t even do Cargo anymore since they morphed into a low cost carrier.
What does however concern me is the effect of teh Green party ammendment to the Nama legislation levying an 80% tax on land rezonings. Most of the route of MN north of Swords is Zoned Green Belt and policy GS2 in the development plan seeks to prevent the merging of Swords, Malahide, Donabate together.
The problem is that the MN passenger forecasts are predicated on 46% of passenger numbers joining the service before Swords; if developers have to hand 80% of their profits over in tax to have the land rezoned from Greenbelt then nothing will be built.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
They estimated about 20m passengers and approximate operational break-even the year before opening (2003).
http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=4379&lang=ENG&loc=1346.Never questioned your word; I would however say that D6 had a higher density in 2003 than D9 has now.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
The population density along the route is not relevant – an apartment building next to the line will generate no trips if it is nowhere near a station. What matters is the actual and potential residential/worker/student density in walking distance around the stations and the popularity of the station location as a trip destination (for shopping or entertainment or whatever).I’m not sure how this question is relevant to MN ridership. The red line follows a different route from the IC. They intersect at Heuston and Docklands.IC will certainly take passengers from the red line for journeys between heuston and docklands, however both lines will feed passengers to each other. I expect overall ridership on the red line to increase post IC..
My question was not what happens in 2016 post IC; it was do a passenger count on existing Luas Red coming down Stephens Lane and do another one crossing Kings Bridge; what is the percentage difference and how many crossing Kings Bridge will do so when they are offered IC.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
I think they did their own forecasts based on the DTO demand prediction model. They would have had to get their estimates independently audited by one of the transport consultancies like Faber Maunsell.
Frank
Even if you buy the proposition that 46% of the maximum passenger load will board MN before Swords at peak the 35m doesn’t stack up.
Maximum hourly volume is about 6,100 which occurs at DCU; by the time the segregated Luas reaches DCU roughly 800 people have alighted on presumably a Monday to Friday basis. The stated capacity of MN is 35m which assumes 95,890 passengers per day; assuming the system works from 630 am to 1230am the system would carry an average of 5,327 people per day for an 18 hour period.
I would present an alternative scenario
Monday to Friday (hourly figures)
630am – 730am 1,500 people inbound 1,000 people outbound
730am – 930am 6,900 people inbound 1,000 people outbound
930am – 430pm 1,500 people each direction
430pm – 630pm 5,000 outbound 1,250 inbound
630pm – 1230am 2,000 outbound 1,000 people inbound19.06m
Weekends
630am 1230pm 2,000 per hour each direction
3.74m
Total 22.8m p.a.x
Please comment on the credibility of the passenger load added at each station from Bellinstown to Drumcounrda; with particular reference to the latter and the lack of interchange passengers
Fair point there are 2,600 spaces to be provided; assuming each car has 1.5 passengers that is about 3,900 passengers a day which comes to about 1.2m annual passengers. Another point worth considering is that 2,000 of the car spaces or 3,000 passengers are to park within 1 mile of an existing rail line at Donabate; why not just move the carpark close to mile?
Frank
The RPA predicted the numbers on Luas; I’ll take your word on that but two things I would like you to consider are firstly the population density of the Luas Route to Dundrum which is infinitely higher than the density to old Ballymun and secondly how many of the Red line passengers are using Luas to access Heuston Station and how many of them will continue to use it post interconnector?
My interpretation is that the passenger forecasts were done by the RPA; please correct me if I am wrong on this; as whatever way I look at the Metro North proposed catchment and following marmajam’s chuck it in anyway posts I’m pretty sure not a pensioner was missed.
I can’t get the population catchment as far as the Airport above about 54,000 and given the way the census records Swords as sprawling half way to Ballyboghill, and from looking at aeriel photos of so called inner Swords I can’t see a 1kms radius of the proposed alignment having a population above 20,000. But please do enlighten me if I have missed anything; it is however surprising that that no poplulation catchment was given; you would think that it would be the first variable stated.
Capacity is not straight forward; take the Jubilee line which is listed as having a capacity of 37,000 per hour; the two key sections of that route are Canary Wharf to Waterloo and the overlapping section of London Bridge to Baker Street; the route doesn’t really transport people in an origin to destination type of way for most users; it is more used for moving people from the rail terminus from the outer commuter segments of the network to their end destination.
Given that MN only connects the Maynooth line to Luas Red Line and the Interconnector and that demand at peak times for this connection looks to be less than 100 per peak hour surely a Luas connection from Ballymun in would suffice; with Swords and the Airport served from the Northern Line.
@jimg wrote:
PVC King, you are a complete bullshitter. I’m worried someone reading what you write could mistake it for being anything other than the inane ramblings of an ill-informed fool because I have to give you credit, you disguise it well.
You haven’t the slightest clue about the fundamentals of the crisis which Ireland is afflicted with. I’m highly suspicious of your claims of expertise in any field. You makes such simple errors, not just in terms of concepts but in terms of approach. You pull figures out of your ass, feed them through a few school boy calculations and expect the gullible or stupid to accept the resulting figures as having some validity; the reality is they still stink of your anus. You think bandying about some numbers and being able to perform multiplication impresses? .
I have never claimed to be an expert in anything; merely expressing an opinion that you like so many others can only see downside at a time that the rest of the World is recovering and key markets are being restored. I note that as opposed to dispute what I’ve said you have taken the soft option of personal attack devoid of anything to back up what you say; I have used figures which were clearly marked as broad brushstroke as noone knows at what the portfolio will be valued at until independant international property consultants who value portfolios day in day out for loan to value ratio tests report back.
In any event your background is financial services; have you ever fund/asset managed a real estate portfolio do you even as your initial figure clearly did not differentiate between investment property and development land.
@jimg wrote:
You obviously haven’t a clue about the cause of the Irish banking crisis as you constantly muddle it with unrelated aspects of international financial crisis but I guess you think it makes you sound erudite by mentioning LTMC or quants or whatever. You have no notion of macro economics; your claim that macro features are more predictable is absolute bollox. I could go on. .
The point on LTMC is that they who included some of the most celebrated economists on the planet at that time through the use of a quants model got it spectacularly wrong. The underlying issue is that ecomonics as a flawed science and those that make money in the absence of arbitrage do so by taking contrarian positions at times of volatility and structural change.
The fundamental point you fail to understand with Investment Property is that unlike paper or synthetic instruments they are not marked to market on a daily basis. Investment grade property involves long leases often with a 12-18 year unexpired term with no tenant break options; they are therefore insulated from oversupply in occupier markets. There are specialist investors notably German funds and Sovereign Wealth funds who buy this type of investment; at present in yield range of 5.25% – 7.00%.
The Irish investors who bought in the UK in the past decade tended to buy investment grade properties; notably tenancies include Shell, Citigroup and DeBeers. They typically bought at yields of 4.50% – 6% many of these investments have seen a lot of rental growth locked in by concluding rent reviews since purchase.
Whilst your pessimism is well placed when it copmes to rent review on the part of those tenants the landlords have the benefit of the upwards only rent review system. As much as the tenants need economic analysis from some one a lot more qualified than I to give it for their businesses unless they enter insolvency they have to keep paying the rent.
Clearly portfolio vlauers will weight covenant strength and risk of default into their calculations. There are international investors who would buy fully tenanted investments in Dublin once the tenant has an appropriate S & P scale credit rating and the yield is attractive to them; Michael O’Leary made a similar point in respect of Liam Carrolls buildings that are let or pre-let to the Government; why hold ten year bonds at 4.75% when you can acheive a yiled of 6.50% on a building let to exactly the same covenant?
The great irony of the whole thing is that in some shape of form either through Nama or an equity injection into the banks the government have turned the population into the largest landlord in London and Brussels.
@markpb wrote:
I can easily. The other rail tracks (Dart, Suburban and Luas) that it connects with allow plenty of onward travel choices that cover a large part of the city.
Metro North relies heavily on the interconnector to justify its crazy terminus at Stephen’s Green, made worse by the fact that its construction is being prioritised over, and at the likely expense of the interconnector proceeding at all.
@markpb wrote:
You can’t expect them to build a single metro line that covers the entire city. It would be unacceptably expensive. This is a good start.
I don’t. I do however expect provision to be made for the inevitable extension. Its bad enough that they seek to destroy the integrity of Stephen’s Green, but by their lack of foresight clearly intend to go back and plough it up all over again in ten years time. Though, I suppose given the going over its about to receive, it won’t matter much at that point.
@gunter wrote:
The insanity of either wanting or believing that Swords will have a population of 100,000 in eleven years time hasn’t occured to you, marmajam?
We would need bad planning to continue on a massive scale for that to happen.
I don’t know anyone who cares about Dublin who wouldn’t love to have a metro North, South, East and West and Luas lines in all directions, but if we’re going to start undermining the proper planning of the city to fit in with unbalanced infra-structure choices, we’re not just going to be broke forever, we’re going to be living in a city that’s all arteries and no heart.
I couldn’t agree more and as the country emerges from a tough couple of years it is vital that value for money be delivered in all infrastructural spending. If you could have predicted GDP growth rates of 8% p.a., net in migration of 50,000 p.a. for another decade and if the GDA required 60,000 housing units a year anything could have stacked up.
When you start from a presumption of a requirement of 25,000 residential units a year for the entire metropolitian region then the priority clearly has to be linking up what already exists and enhancing the capacity of existing routes. There are so many obvious projects that stack up in any market such as Interconnector including electrification to Adamstown, the Luas link up, electrifying the Maynooth and Balbriggan rail lines. More QBCs to areas such as Ringsend; a Luas line into North West Dublin, Dart for Tallaght.
Unfortunately funding is going to be less abundant and in that context it is vital that growth be put into areas that are best placed to absorb it such as
North Wall/ East Wall
Ringsend/Barrow Street/Irishtown
Heuston/ St James’ St
Inchicore/Park West/Clondalkin
Tolka Valley
Summerhill/Killarney St
Rathmines/Harolds CrossI fully agree that prioritising development on one corridor which has a density of 1,300 people per square kilometre at the expense of the rest of the City would be just wrong
Grow up Ireland and India share the same colours in their national flag and nothing else.
34m is 93,150 passengers per day on a seven day week. The airport is at 20m and given the great deals Air Lingus are doing from Gatwick it doesn’t seem that it will be growing any time soon. No Airport in World has more than 45% of passengers using rail connections; those that acheive over 30%tend to have multiple rail lines to multiple destinations.
Taking 40% of 20m will give about 8m passengers.
2,600 car spaces will give a maximum of about 1.22m passengers
Allowing 5,000 Dublin Airport workers to MN gives a further 1.125m passengers
The population catchment according to the RPA is 44,200 people; explain how 44,200 people will deliver close to 24m passenger journeys in a Dublin specific context for a project date of 2016.
We are in reality; the population density does not add up to the demand forecast.
Explain how a population of 44,200 people, 2,600 parking spaces plus an airport with 20m p.a.x will deliver 35m passengers per year.
I am going to keep posting the material below until you answer the question
There are three key flaws in this document firstly it does not give annual predictions for any location purely hourly capacity.
Secondly population density; the stated population density is 1,300 people per square kilometre on the route; taking 1 kilometre as being a realisitc walking distance the catchment of Metro North would be 34 square Kilometres which would give a catchment of 44,200 people
Thirdly the EIS that you kindly posted a link to lists a total of 2600 car spaces which is you give ridership figures of 1.5 cars per day only produces 3,900 journeys per day or assuming a six day week an annual total of 1.216m per year.
Add 8m airport passengers and you see that the 54,127 figure I gave by including all potential electoral wards as opposed to the sections of those wards that were convenient was a very safe bet.
Real demand based on the RPAs own figures in annual terms would be catchment 7.596m, Airport 8m and park and ride 1.216m or a total of 16.812m
Finally compare Budapest with a population density of 3,500 people per square kilometre and Metro North with a population density some 37% of the Budapest figure but Metro North has an hourly capacity 51.5% higher than a line with three times the catchment.
I am really starting to have my doubts as to how this project ever got off the ground; Luas is deemd adequate with a capacity of 4,650 per hour on the same population density.
Enough bluster – just answer the question relating to a document produced by the RPA; this is the third time this has been put to you.
There are three key flaws in this document firstly it does not give annual predictions for any location purely hourly capacity.
Secondly population density; the stated population density is 1,300 people per square kilometre on the route; taking 1 kilometre as being a realisitc walking distance the catchment of Metro North would be 34 square Kilometres which would give a catchment of 44,200 people
Thirdly the EIS that you kindly posted a link to lists a total of 2600 car spaces which is you give ridership figures of 1.5 cars per day only produces 3,900 journeys per day or assuming a six day week an annual total of 1.216m per year.
Add 8m airport passengers and you see that the 54,127 figure I gave by including all potential electoral wards as opposed to the sections of those wards that were convenient was a very safe bet.
Real demand based on the RPAs own figures in annual terms would be catchment 7.596m, Airport 8m and park and ride 1.216m or a total of 16.812m
Finally compare Budapest with a population density of 3,500 people per square kilometre and Metro North with a population density some 37% of the Budapest figure but Metro North has an hourly capacity 51.5% higher than a line with three times the catchment.
I am really starting to have my doubts as to how this project ever got off the ground; Luas is deemd adequate with a capacity of 4,650 per hour on the same population density.
GREEN PARTY Ministers are insisting on the introduction of a windfall tax on property developers as “an essential and indispensable” corollary of the Nama legislation.
The example used to justify this was the Sandyford Luas Line which they do have a point on, public money created significant value for anyone who lived on the line including those who held development land. I do however feel that the game moved on after the success of that investment and the concept of specific development contributions has been accepted by all sides once the scale of the contribution is reasonable.
I do not however feel that targetting specific sectors of the economy in a uniform way for disproportionate taxation is any solution. Take a developer who has paid top dollar for a site on an existing Luas line; the value added by the piece of infrastructure has already been fully priced into what they paid for the land. The last vendor has already walked away with the value added by Government in a previous cycle.
What would be more equitable would be to set up a regional transport planning unit who would plan the number of development consents to be added in specific locations over a ten year time frame and set a level of development contribution per square meter of space.
Why that is the only equitable method is that if you take two different scenarios with a windfall tax of 27.50% in addition to the 12.50% Corporation tax; scenario 1 involves a regional housebuilder in Sligo building 16 houses of speculative quality adjoining a comuter town to Sligo; land cost €250,000, construction cost €2,400,000 including legal and auctioneer fees, sale price €3,750,000 – PBITA €1,100,000 – net profit say €660,000 net margin 25.38%
Scenario 2; development company buys parcel of land adjoining rail line in Dublin 8 to build 16 apartments; land cost €2.4m; construction cost to include decent and environmentally freindly specification €2.82m; sale price €6.4m- PBITA €1.18m – net profit say €708k – net margin 13.56%
My interpretation of Green thinking is that a large part of it stems from a frustration of people like the Healy Reas who may have encouraged people to takeg the absolute Michael in terms of site farming over a number of years and regional developers building 150 houses on the edge of towns which lacked the road, water, waste or educational infrastructure to support these developments and led to clientist TD’s demanding expensive water, road and educational investments to prevent localised meltdown in subsequent years.
What is required is that unlike the past 15 years future development occurs in the right places where the infrastructure exists; and that infrastructure planning provision drives development patterns going forward. Put simply a regional planning authorities for Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway that devises plans on a ten year time frame and sets out clearly in advance that specific electoral wards are in specific development zones which are subject to pre-stated infrastructural contributions to transport, water and educational levies based on a square meter or in residential unit basis. There may be an angle in using environmental performance ratings to provide discounts where it could be demonstrated that energy efficiency, bike parking etc were provided.
As for one off houses a €50,000 levy should be introduced immediately on these as the biggest subsideis of all over the past decades are the ongoing service costs of servicing population densities that would not have been permitted in any other northern european country. A reduced levy should be applied for multiple unit applications based on the additional infrastructure that they consume.
Agreed Hutton but if you look at his posting he only gets abusive when he is trying to evade answering a question.
Such as justifying the population density for the route which cab clearly be seen from the link below as that proves that the demand forecasts for Metro North are a complete work of fiction.
@PVC King wrote:
There are three key flaws in this document firstly it does not give annual predictions for any location purely hourly capacity.
Secondly population density; the stated population density is 1,300 people per square kilometre on the route; taking 1 kilometre as being a realisitc walking distance the catchment of Metro North would be 34 square Kilometres which would give a catchment of 44,200 people
Thirdly the EIS that you kindly posted a link to lists a total of 2600 car spaces which is you give ridership figures of 1.5 cars per day only produces 3,900 journeys per day or assuming a six day week an annual total of 1.216m per year.
Add 8m airport passengers and you see that the 54,127 figure I gave by including all potential electoral wards as opposed to the sections of those wards that were convenient was a very safe bet.
Real demand based on the RPAs own figures in annual terms would be catchment 7.596m, Airport 8m and park and ride 1.216m or a total of 16.812m
Finally compare Budapest with a population density of 3,500 people per square kilometre and Metro North with a population density some 37% of the Budapest figure but Metro North has an hourly capacity 51.5% higher than a line with three times the catchment.
I am really starting to have my doubts as to how this project ever got off the ground; Luas is deemd adequate with a capacity of 4,650 per hour on the same population density.
Thanks AC but that simply lays a claim to 35m it provides no guidance as to where the numbers actually come from.
I did however come across the document below:
There are three key flaws in this document firstly it does not give annual predictions for any location purely hourly capacity.
Secondly population density; the stated population density is 1,300 people per square kilometre on the route; taking 1 kilometre as being a realisitc walking distance the catchment of Metro North would be 34 square Kilometres which would give a catchment of 44,200 people
Thirdly the EIS that you kindly posted a link to lists a total of 2600 car spaces which is you give ridership figures of 1.5 cars per day only produces 3,900 journeys per day or assuming a six day week an annual total of 1.216m per year.
Add 8m airport passengers and you see that the 54,127 figure I gave by including all potential electoral wards as opposed to the sections of those wards that were convenient was a very safe bet.
Real demand based on the RPAs own figures in annual terms would be catchment 7.596m, Airport 8m and park and ride 1.216m or a total of 16.812m
Finally compare Budapest with a population density of 3,500 people per square kilometre and Metro North with a population density some 37% of the Budapest figure but Metro North has an hourly capacity 51.5% higher than a line with three times the catchment.
I am really starting to have my doubts as to how this project ever got off the ground; Luas is deemd adequate with a capacity of 4,650 per hour on the same population density.
@marmajam wrote:
Oh I see you are banning non residents of Swords from using the Swords sction.
And for all time no matter what develops there 😀
Swords is projected to have a pop of 100,000 by 2020.
Annual house building in 2008 was 22,500 for the entire state; Swords has a population of 37,767, that leaves a population of 62,233 to be added by 2020. Total House production in the next decade will be 225,000 units are you saying that 13.83% (assuming double occupancy) of housing produced in the country will be in Swords?
@marmajam wrote:
You have failed to answer the question PVC.
Why did you introduce a document that did not refer to MN as designed?
a bit embarassing to admit you were bluffing?
Web searches turned up the document in question; the one you claim at 34m passengers could not be located; if you post the link I will comment on it; although I suspect it is a document the RPA don’t want in the public domain as it is “too commercially sensitive”.
Time for you to answer a question; are you saying that a population of 54,127 can produce 16.4m passenger journeys per year?
The assumption was that it related to Swords as the numbers excluding Swords are just too unrealistic.
Are you saying that a population of 54,127 can deliver 16.4m passenger trips?
@marmajam wrote:
Of course a very rapidly expanding Swords will add a huge amount of passengers to MN.
It is clear that the opponents of MN have an agenda. Their sums do not add up so we are regaled with invented figures.
The population of Swords is 37,767 of which less than half live within walking distance of a proposed metro stop. Assuming a usage rate of 40% which is high that would deliver 7,553 commuters or 3.39m annual journeys. That is an annual passenger revenue of €7.8m we are talking about a €2bn project with annual financing costs of €115m; €7.8m is 6.78% of the interest bill it is insignificant.
If the Metro demand analysis was for 24.4m passengers without Swords then it is significantly flawed. Taking the 8m airport passengers away it assumes 16.4m passengers between Ballymun and Drumcoundra travelling to the City Centre. That assumes that a population of 91,100 live within a mile of stops at Santry, Ballymun, DCU, Griffith Avenue, Drumcoundra, Mater Hospital.
The Actual population according to the 2006 census is
Mounjoy 7,206
Drumcoundra 8,637
Grace Park 5,925
Whitehall 12,842
Ballymun 19,517Total 54,127
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75472
If 40% usage patterns bear out and each commuter makes 450 trips per year this section of the route would deliver c9.74m passengers add that to the 3.39m Swords adds and the 8m the airport adds and a figure of 20.13m is the level of demand that you would actually get.
Swords does not justify a metro, the best way to connect the City Centre to the Airport is via the Northern Line as it offers a differential pricing model that would add an additional €16m p.a. in revenue. Luas to Ballymun would no doubt be able to handle the 9.74m passenger journeys that section would generate.
The 24.3m is clearly out of date and predicated on development patterns that never happened and won’t happen anytime in my lifetime. There is simply nowhere to put that quantum of development along the alignment.
At page 11 last paragraph 24.4m with the enhanced option apparently
@garethace wrote:
I know, guys this is dreadful times for all of us to be attempting any kind of rational debate on the issues.
What is so dreadful about it?
The property collateral tro these loans is if Pat McArdle is right was bought for €110bn
The outstanding loan book is €90bn
The Value of the collateral underpinning the loan book is undetermined.
From this point it can’t get any worse unless the position we have been led to believe i.e. the split of three classes is incorrect and a higher proportion relates to the landbank which in itself is going to be a very mixed bag.
What we do know is that outside Ireland economic activity is picking up; from an employment location point of view that commercial rents are a lot more attractive when compared to rival markets than in the recent past and that many unemployed people will be happy to work for a more competitive wage than they would have 2 years ago. Unemployment fell by 4,000 last month which is a long way from the 20,000 positions wiped out in March. The challenge is to get unemployment down and spread opportunity across a wider percentage of the population.
The first step to resolving the Nama issue has to be to get a reputable International Property Consultancy with the Geographic reach to the value assets to give a red book open market valuation of the total loan book.
The global economic pick up will feed into values over time and values will recover; if Pat McArdle is right borrowers will take a hit for €30bn or not if there loans are performing they will hold onto their equity, the three main banks have already written down close to €10bn which if you add other players such as RBS, BoSI etc you can probably double that figure to arrive at write offs to date to €20bn.
If that is the case the unprovisioned postion with the Nama loanbook is probably about €65bn from an initial purchase value of the assets being some €115bn or put another way €55bn is not the Governments problem. Looking individually at asset sub-classes the Q3 2009 book right downs on a class by class basis my look something like the figures below. Again these are worst case scenario as a lot of this debt will have been taken on long before the peak values were reached whilst the rent roll may have increased in line with the market.
The UK market is off about 30% from peak to Trough – book loss €11.5bn
Irish Commercial is off about 43% from peak to trough – book loss €16.5bn
Development land is probably off about 65% from peak to trough – book loss €24.9bnOn that basis the value of the portfolio is probably about €62bn and with €20bn already provisioned in losses that leaves a gap of €8bn or €10bn arcording to Pat McArdle to be plugged in.
Medium term commercial yields accross a European market would suggest c5.00% – 5.50% are typical; in assuming yields of 6.00% for the UK and 7.00% in Ireland there is a lot more upside than downside in the next decade.
@jimg wrote:
Valuation exercise? Don’t make me laugh. Producing the “valuation model” will be in the hands of one of the most senior auctioneers in the country. So we have a senior auctioneer deciding how much the government should pay for bank loans.
“ill informed”? Before the start of this year I spent half a decade working in an Irish bank and now I work for an incredibly profitable proprietary trading company. I know markets and how they work, I can read balance sheets and I’ve done financial models for huge government projects. All you have contributed to this thread is a load of horse shit figures pulled from your arse mascerading as “macro economic analysis” which clearly demonstrate that you know f*ck all about macro economics or markets. Your bluster might impress people who know no better but it wont work with me. You are a bullshitter, plain and simple. You wouldn’t survive a second in the company of the people I work with.
I don’t think I’ve been as blunt with anyone else on this forum and I am almost embarrassed that I’ve risen to your bait but even missarchi provides far more enlightening input here than you. I don’t know how you’ve managed it but you’re making maramjam look good on the transport21 thread.
If you have an issue on the Transport 21 thread post it there I have no doubts €2bn to deliver 24.4m passengers is a complete white elephant.
We all know the mess caused by quants led modelling in every market from equities to currencies to commodities. There is no economic model that works in volatile markets full stop; before you to claim that anyone knows anything about what markets will do next I would refer you to Long Term Capital Managment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Genius_Failed:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Long-Term_Capital_Management
Your background is finance or trading; I have no idea how good or bad you are at it so I will not comment. However your area is not real estate and Nama is an issue dealing primarily with Real Estate a sector to which I have a lot of experience in and exposure to.
Your analysis was that Nama is a loan book of €90bn and has a net realisable value of €30bn. That unlike the LTCM fiasco which was overly complicated you view is deficient due to an oversimplification. It is like comparing equities in the US, Taiwan and the UK after the Asian crisis; every asset class has its sub markets and geographical variances.
The position with Nama is simple two thirds of the loan book can be valued very easily; it is known that prime commercial yields in London are back to c6% from recent transactions that have completed and those that have exchanged with concrete funding behind the offers. It is likely that International pension fund investors will purchase prime commercial stock in Ireland at yields of 7% – 8% if prime stock reaches the market. The potential to access a top slice of 200-300 bps with tenants they have elsewhere in their portfolios e.g. Vodafone, Citigroup etc will be too attractive to pass up; they are in effect betting on the tenant and not the property market as rent reviews are upwards only.
The final third of the loanbook is difficult to value, there is limited occupier demand for commercial space and residential value indexes being quoted in asking prices as opposed to completed transactions makes valuation difficult. However you need a set of assumptions on likely selling/rental prices, constructions costs, void period or time to let/sell and what level of discount you concede in the form of developers profit.
Until that process is complete no one will know the outcome not even those as celebrated as LTCM or Seanie Fitz
@marmajam wrote:
where did the RPA mention 3bn?
or any cost?. you’ve been stitched up by Frankie MacDonald.
Paul Melia is the source and is a very different type of journalist to FmD. Nobody even the RPA was talking about Metro costing less than €3bn. Even accepting a €2bn cost which is the lowest put into the public domain by any credited source and the economics don’t work. less than 25m passengers and an annual debt service bill of €115m; a subvention exceeding €4.70 per passenger just to cover the interest bill is simply unacceptable.
@marmajam wrote:
at 87m interest pa it is a little more than 2.50 Euros per ticket.
Pretty reasonable in 2016..The costs will be at least €2bn; the rate of interest will be 5.75% as it will not be senior debt and the number of passengers estimated at 24.4m. That delivers an interest only cost of €4.70 per passenger. Given that Dart loses money operationally it is safe to assume that this service would as well. At least €5 per passenger journey in losses; per commuter you are asking the taxpayer to pay €5 per journey 10 times a week 47 weeks a year or €2,350 per commuter per year.
@marmajam wrote:
There is no metro system in the world barring Singapore that breaks even..
London Underground made money in 2007.
@marmajam wrote:
Any subvention will be very short lived – MN is for up to 200 years..
No project can be assessed on a 200 year timeframe; show one railway study where a 200 year timeframe has been used.
the operational costs however will continue to rise and as the project will lose money operationally year on year; in the interim construction activity will not pick up to anything like the levels
and the population@marmajam wrote:
The bigger picture has to be addressed.
Poor quality public transport in Dublin is cited by investors as one of the main drawbacks to investing here. You have to laugh at the idea of the RPA sneaking in some overpriced scheme while nobody is looking. The project has been analysed to death in the DoT and by the OTC. The RPA can do nothing. It did not occur to you that if your projected/invented sums meant an average ticket price of 6 Euros plus there might be a flaw in your calculations?.
Interest alone of €4.70 per ticket; average Dart fare of €2.30 would give a break even point above €7 per ticket. I am all for a fair level of subvention maybe €1.50 – €2.50 per ticket in interest cover. Compare this project to the Airport Dart Spur
Cost €400m
Interest €23m
Passengers 8m (20m airport passengers * 40% usage)
Cost per passenger €2.875
Ticket Price to Airport €4.30
Ticket Price to Malahide €2.30Subvention per ticket €0.875
@marmajam wrote:
Dear me. It’s glib to slag off our esteemed betters and ‘experts’ as if everything they propose is stupid but they are certainly no more stupid than braneless message board posters who think they know it all with just a bit of a quick think.
It’s difficult not to get somewhat personal in your case/ I happen to know enough about this project to see that you simply invent facts and data to back up your arguments.
There’s no end to it.
MN has benn CBAed on the CONSERVATIVE estimate of 34 million passengers per year.
Where did you get 23 million from?
It actually has the capacity to carry more than 100 million passengers per year..The relevant section is in the last pararagraph in Page 11; the authors are the RPA.
@marmajam wrote:
Given that the DART and Luas have been much more successful than predicted it wouldn’t be wise to expect something different with a high quality facility like MN.
20 years after construction it will carry 50-60 million passengers per year.
Dart cost £115m or €300m in todays values
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0400/D.0400.199006190187.html
Luas after an initial budget of €288 and cost close to €800m in the end for two lines serving two seperate development corridors.
Where are the 60m passengers going to come from?
Dublin Airport even assumioming growth to 30m p.a.x. will never generate more than 12m rail trips based on International modelling.
Ballymun with a population of 19,517 will deliver possibly 7,806 commuters
Swords with a population of 37,767 over 3,476 Hectares will deliver 15,107 commuters. Between both these settlements you have c10.3m annual passenger journeys; the airport will currently deliver about 8m journeys; which presumes that journeys between other points along the rest of the route will deliver about 6.1m journeys.The 60m figure you mention assumes an additional 80,000 commuters along the route from a population of 200,000 people.
Where are you going to put 200,000 people along this route?
Metro North at a cost of €2bn serves a City Centre Section as far as Drumcoundra that is all within a 15 minute walk of the network.
A University set amongst a residential density of roughly 16 to the acre, a planned town of 19,517 people, some out of town retail units and warehouses, an airport and an urban sprawl of 37,767 the majority of which is beytond 15 minutes walk from the proposed alignment. A route section that is sandwiched bewtween a motorway and an existing rail line.
In development terms Metro North is vastly inferior to the corridor between Heuston and Adamstown or Blanchardstown and Pace.
@marmajam wrote:
where did the RPA mention 3bn?
or any cost?. you’ve been stitched up by Frankie MacDonald.
Paul Melia is the source and is a very different type of journalist to FmD. Nobody even the RPA was talking about Metro costing less than €3bn. Even accepting a €2bn cost which is the lowest put into the public domain by any credited source and the economics don’t work. less than 25m passengers and an annual debt service bill of €115m; a subvention exceeding €4.70 per passenger just to cover the interest bill is simply unacceptable.
@marmajam wrote:
at 87m interest pa it is a little more than 2.50 Euros per ticket.
Pretty reasonable in 2016..The costs will be at least €2bn; the rate of interest will be 5.75% as it will not be senior debt and the number of passengers estimated at 24.4m. That delivers an interest only cost of €4.70 per passenger. Given that Dart loses money operationally it is safe to assume that this service would as well. At least €5 per passenger journey in losses; per commuter you are asking the taxpayer to pay €5 per journey 10 times a week 47 weeks a year or €2,350 per commuter per year.
@marmajam wrote:
There is no metro system in the world barring Singapore that breaks even..
London Underground made money in 2007.
@marmajam wrote:
Any subvention will be very short lived – MN is for up to 200 years..
No project can be assessed on a 200 year timeframe; show one railway study where a 200 year timeframe has been used.
the operational costs however will continue to rise and as the project will lose money operationally year on year; in the interim construction activity will not pick up to anything like the levels
and the population@marmajam wrote:
The bigger picture has to be addressed.
Poor quality public transport in Dublin is cited by investors as one of the main drawbacks to investing here. You have to laugh at the idea of the RPA sneaking in some overpriced scheme while nobody is looking. The project has been analysed to death in the DoT and by the OTC. The RPA can do nothing. It did not occur to you that if your projected/invented sums meant an average ticket price of 6 Euros plus there might be a flaw in your calculations?.
Interest alone of €4.70 per ticket; average Dart fare of €2.30 would give a break even point above €7 per ticket. I am all for a fair level of subvention maybe €1.50 – €2.50 per ticket in interest cover. Compare this project to the Airport Dart Spur
Cost €400m
Interest €23m
Passengers 8m (20m airport passengers * 40% usage)
Cost per passenger €2.875
Ticket Price to Airport €4.30
Ticket Price to Malahide €2.30Subvention per ticket €0.875
@marmajam wrote:
Dear me. It’s glib to slag off our esteemed betters and ‘experts’ as if everything they propose is stupid but they are certainly no more stupid than braneless message board posters who think they know it all with just a bit of a quick think.
It’s difficult not to get somewhat personal in your case/ I happen to know enough about this project to see that you simply invent facts and data to back up your arguments.
There’s no end to it.
MN has benn CBAed on the CONSERVATIVE estimate of 34 million passengers per year.
Where did you get 23 million from?
It actually has the capacity to carry more than 100 million passengers per year..The relevant section is in the last pararagraph in Page 11; the authors are the RPA.
@marmajam wrote:
Given that the DART and Luas have been much more successful than predicted it wouldn’t be wise to expect something different with a high quality facility like MN.
20 years after construction it will carry 50-60 million passengers per year.
Dart cost £115m or €300m in todays values
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0400/D.0400.199006190187.html
Luas after an initial budget of €288 and cost close to €800m in the end for two lines serving two seperate development corridors.
Where are the 60m passengers going to come from?
Dublin Airport even assumioming growth to 30m p.a.x. will never generate more than 12m rail trips based on International modelling.
Ballymun with a population of 19,517 will deliver possibly 7,806 commuters
Swords with a population of 37,767 over 3,476 Hectares will deliver 15,107 commuters. Between both these settlements you have c10.3m annual passenger journeys; the airport will currently deliver about 8m journeys; which presumes that journeys between other points along the rest of the route will deliver about 6.1m journeys.The 60m figure you mention assumes an additional 80,000 commuters along the route from a population of 200,000 people.
Where are you going to put 200,000 people along this route?
Metro North at a cost of €2bn serves a City Centre Section as far as Drumcoundra that is all within a 15 minute walk of the network.
A University set amongst a residential density of roughly 16 to the acre, a planned town of 19,517 people, some out of town retail units and warehouses, an airport and an urban sprawl of 37,767 the majority of which is beytond 15 minutes walk from the proposed alignment. A route section that is sandwiched bewtween a motorway and an existing rail line.
In development terms Metro North is vastly inferior to the corridor between Heuston and Adamstown or Blanchardstown and Pace.
