admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
No but an unprecedented number of technical deificiencies in the EIS have been referred back by An Bord Pleanala; obviously its not just the financials on this project that are seriously flawed.
@marmajam wrote:
a few trees get cut down and replaced
what an appalling crime against something or other.
Far from being a few trees it is obliteration of the entire North West Corner of the park which will include hundreds of trees and mature shrubs, necessitate the deconstruction and reconstruction of period stone features which if they are to be authentic will cost a very large amount of money. It will result in the severance of the main pedestrian axis from Grafton Street to Leeson Street for a number of years. Not to mention singificant disturbance to the retail environment through the large amount of truck movements over the construction phase. Dublin Port Tunnel worked well because both ends of the tunnel were either at a motorway or an area that a few hundred daily truck movements could be absorbed into.
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=80430&postcount=1
For you to reduce the destruction of the most unique sections of this most used of National Monuments to a few trees being removed displays just how little you understand of the urban environment. When you look at the small landtake made by the Interconnector you see a much more appropriate project.
My key complaint with Metro North is not heritage protection but that it is a waste of money however the destruction of a national monument is entirely symptomatic of just how little thought went into the project in general.
@wearnicehats wrote:
From the Bill:
NAMA not required to register certain instruments, etc.
84.—(1) Where a bank asset has been acquired by NAMA or a NAMA group entity—
(a) notwithstanding anything in the Bills of Sale (Ireland) Acts 1879 and 1883, the
Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act 1927, the Agricultural
Credit Act 1978, the Companies Act 1963, the Registration of Deeds and Title
Acts 1964 and 2006, the Patents Act 1992, the Trade Marks Act 1996, the Taxes
Consolidation Act 1997 or any other Act, that provides for the registration of
assets, security or details of them, NAMA is not required to become registered
as owner of any security that is part of the bank asset,
(b) notwithstanding sections 62 and 64 of the Registration of Title Act 1964,
NAMA has, in relation to any such charge, the powers of a mortgagee under a
mortgage by deed, even though NAMA or the NAMA group entity concerned is
not registered as owner of any such charge,
(c) NAMA has the powers and rights conferred on the registered owner of a charge
by the Registration of Title Act 1964.My reading of this is that NAMA are taking over the loans as banks normally would ie they are taking over and managing the risk. In that case the deeds remain held by whoever holds them under the terms of the original loan. If the loan is defaulted then NAMA will act as if it is the original lender to secure the loan based upon its terms. Presumably then the deeds pass to NAMA? maybe it’s just a way of reducing the paperwork
or I could be talking bollocks
You would think it is to give Nama a waiver on having to register a charge on the deeds of each loan that they are taking over which is secured on property be it real estate, chattels or intellectual. I am sure the Incorporated Law Society are not best pleased to not grant the exemption would have created a lot of work for solicitors.
My understanding of Nama (I could be very wrong) is that the banks in return for taking a haircut in line with the perceived risk will walk away from the loans and have no further exposure. To create a superior interest you would ordinarily need to register same on deeds.
@missarchi wrote:
The works on St Stephen Green can have minimal impact its just comes down to what engineering solution / cost/ architecture / political balance you want to achieve.
We have only been shown one option in detail so far. )Absolutely correct the only option considered was based on the ownership of the land being OPW and therefore being free; this is probably the most inappropriate place in Dublin for a tunnel entry point. Selecting the wide open grass space towards the North East corner would have been vastly preferable as grass can be fully reinstated in a couple of years with no impacts. However draining the pond and removing mature trees will do damage that will take decades for this space to be restored to the authentic Victorian set piece that this section of the park currently is.
When the only way to save a project is to cut corners to attempt to make costs fall from €5bn to €2bn poor decsions are taken in a number of areas; no doubt the proponents of the project did not place any value of the National Monument that is Stephens Green but viewed it as being controlled by a Government that would over-rule the OPW on heritage protection.
@rumpelstilskin wrote:
Can I ask if anybody knows why the Metro North was not planned to go underground as far as Ranelagh in order to join up with the segregated section of the Green Luas, thus making one continuous line going from Swords to Sandyford? Wouldn’t this avoid a lot of the controversial works on Stephen’s Green? Surely the cost of this could be made up at least partially by scrapping the BX Luas line and building the loop at the end of the line overground instead of underground? So is it just stupidity or is there a good engineering or planning reason for it? Can the Metro North be joined up with the Luas in the future, or will the extensive work on a terminus at Stephen’s Green preclude that?
The original plan was to build a high capacity metro from Shanngannagh to Dublin Airport; however this plan was in competition with the Luas plan of one network and the three desitinations of Sandyford, Tallaght and the least viable line of Ballymun that was axed.
The design does not preclude the extension to an integration with the Luas Green line at some point South of the Grand Canal but it would involve the costs of building a tunnel to the point where any line merge would occur.
Given that the catchment is fully built up as far as Ranelagh Village the earliest merge point I can think of would be at Manders Terrace which is a distance of roughly 1.5kms the costs of same would be significant running into hundreds of millions and given the large numbers of protected structures in that location it is likely that such an application rightly or wrongly could be contested by a local resident who didn’t want to lose the park in front of their home to be replaced by a rail line they already benefit from to take them to Interconnector.
The time to do metro on a North – South alignment was pre Luas; once the decision to do Luas at the expense of metro was made they should see their decision through and extend Luas to Ballymun and let Interconnector serve the airport.
Very good article putting across a very humanist slant on a business class that traditionally has focused on returns to developers/investors.
NAMA will by the end of the year be the World’s biggest Property company by some way albeit as bond holder as opposed to asset manager per se. The clear mandate of NAMA will be financial and it will be to manage non-performing loans and making calls on whether specific assets are sold and debt paid down.
I do however agree with the authors that as this is taxpayer funded it should look at how society at large could benefit from altering land use in specific holdings to move away from the usual mix of industrial, shopping centre, housing estate to much more bespoke projects like the digital hub that was done.
When you look at a city like Boston you see how campus incubation units play a key role in start up companies some of which have grown to become significant regional employers. There is a lot of development land in this portfolio which will not be developed as standard housing for a very long time given the contraction in housing output. Building an infrastructure to support campus start ups affiliated to the universities and ITs and a higher quality of public open space in new developments would be a very good start.
Sitting on a loan book of that scale and not activiely manging the portfolio was you would imagine never the intention; the question is how wide will their mandate be and how much financial muscle will the body be given to create value to neutralise some of the poor loans taken on.
I would argue that there were other methods of supporting the cable at other locations either within or outside the curtilage of your property that have significantly less impact on the character of your protected structure which like all protected structures is assumed to enhance the urban / cultural environment.
If they could display that the method of support chosen was the only reasonable method to route the cable I would suspect that buried in the sub-clauses of an obscure Telecommunications act is a clause that exempts them from planning permission entirely as is the case with mobile phone antennae. You as the owner of the protected structure may not enjoy such protection; but would have the defence that the works were carried out by a party that didn’t require your consent and that you would have witheld such consent if you were in a position to.
Wayleaves or running services across other people’s land are an established principle in law for example the 1976 Gas Act grants Bord Gais significant powers to enter third party land to install gas pipes. A lot of this no doubt is down to the fact that when the legislation was enacted the State held a monopoly on virtually all energy and communications services and the legislation was enacted in such a way as to minimise the costs to the state bodies that provided the services.
When it comes to private utility companies it is no different once the provider has secured wayleave consent from the relevant local authority you could slow up installation and have a right of reinstatement of the land damaged in the installation but there is no carte blanche right of refusal.
I am unaware of any case law that has held up a carte blanche right to refuse but I have no doubt there would be plenty of case law where contractors just turned up made a mess and were sued for their failure to reinstate to the reasonable satisfaction of the landowner. In the process the best position is to supportive in principal but sceptical in the absence of a method statement outling what exactly they intend to do where and when. If this is a protected structure the owner would be very wise to ensure that nothing in the works had the potential to place the owner in breach of their obligations under the planning acts; the utility provider could probably be sued if they failed to reinstate. The risk in establishing a planning breach would be to alert the authorities who may take action against the owner leaving the landowner fighting on two fronts
@cgcsb wrote:
To be honest PVC, your plan sounds very messy
Its not actually my plan it is more Irish Rail’s Dublin Rail Plan with the one Luas line of the original three that was axed when the Green and Red lines were built and a spur to Swords thrown in.
@cgcsb wrote:
and depends on way to many factors and limits potential future expansion and developement where as Metro will be a blank canvass, it will encourage future developement,
No public transport route unless in green fields can be described as a blank canvas. The development potential of the route is poor from Drumcondra to Ballymun and regardless of how much gets developed between Stephens Green and Ballymun a Luas system would be adequate to cater for the passenger loadings based on population densities that in many cases will never be improved due to fragmented home ownership patterns (i.e. 3 bed semis). It is important to bear in mind that post Interconnector the Irish Rail service to Drumcondra will be considerably better.
@cgcsb wrote:
serve more communities and institutions and will have lots of potential for future expansion of services, perhaps even spur lines and extensions .
Which communities? With a Luas serving to Ballymun and Dart for the Airport and Swords there are no meaningful settlements left out
@cgcsb wrote:
So for those reasons, I am more in favour of metro north. I’m sure you’ve thought about your plan alot, and I mean no disrespect, but I genuinely think that Metro North is the better option for Dublin and besides it’s way to late in planning, and too much has been spent on planning to change it now
I respect your opinion but would add it doesn’t yet have planning permission
There is nothing you can do to prevent them entering your property and errecting cables however as Graham and others have said you can if you play it get something out of it
I would look for a method statement outlining how it is to be fixed and insert conditions that minimise the impacts to your property; if they threw in free cable and broadband that would be great, if they offer free cable and broadband try to remove the ‘personal nature’ of any offer they make. If you were to flog your house in a few years with a right of free cable / broadband attached to the property that would be really quirky! 😀
@cgcsb wrote:
PVC, help me understand some aspects of your proposal
1) luas to Ballymun, ok but if you’re going to build a luas line to Ballymun, surely it should be extended the extra 2km(rough estimate) to the airport?
Its actually over 4kms and approaching from the South is pretty much the worst side to bring a rail line landside as the main terminal buildings have a southern airside which has been extended by the placement of terminal 2 in a similar location which makes relocating the cargo facilities or building an underground section two expensive options.
The ideal way to come in is via the North East or directly from the East albeit with a certain amount of it being elevated; IE looked at this as part of the Dublin Rail plan so an alignment exists at a modest cost.
The distances and engineering challenges would be roughly equivelent from the Northern Line or Ballymun.
@cgcsb wrote:
2) where do you propose the tracks for the luas go? there really isn’t any room
No simple answer to this it would be difficult but at a cost of €54m per kilometer there would be ample resources to create something; I think that the BX link up will teach a lot about sharing space between Luas and QBC. If Nassau Street can take Luas the route to Ballymun will be a much simpler undertaking.
@cgcsb wrote:
3)You propose to build a spur from the Northern line to Swords and a seperate spur to the Airport. Yet you have previously argued agaisnt the metro because there isn’t much going on between the airport and ballymun (probably because the area around major airports shouldn’t be overdeveloped for safety reasons).
Let me ask you where would the line you propose stop on it’s journey between say Malahide and Swords? the bustling metropolis of Kinsealy? surely that goes against your density and passanger number arguements
Both spurs are two seperate issues I will deal with the airport on this one; on the airport the passenger loadings justify the costs with no stops and no developments given that the cost would be c€200m-€250m. Kinsealy would be left alone however a junction station would be built and there would be significant potential for something like the large apartment scheme close to Clarehall Shopping Centre at that location where the ability to develop would be created by a new station and significant development levies could be ralised over a ten year planning permission. Even without any development on the route or junction station the airport passenger loadings would justify the cost of this option.
@cgcsb wrote:
4)the spurs you propose mean that swords would be connect to the Dart, The airport would be connected to the Dart and Ballymun would be connected to the luas. But under your proposal, these three locations despite being in an almost straight line on a map would not be connected to eachother dispite their short distance apart. So if you were going to the airport from Swords, you would have to go in the opposite direction, change train and go back the same way. The train would travel in open countryside (except a possible stop in Kinsealy), and serve nothing but the airport. Where as metro north serves many other locations aswell as the airport.
I checked the Dublin Bus website and cannot find any reference to a bus service from either DCU or Ballymun to the airport; the absence of same leads one to the conclusion that the passenger demand is not there at present. The vast bulk of trips to the airport will be funnelled in from other services i.e. people living / staying at hotels in the central zone or mainline rail, DART, Luas etc. Interconnector Dart to the Airport would hit both Luas lines and have 5 city centre stops.
In any event a taxi from Ballymun or DCU to the airport would probably cost about €10 and there is a QBC to the airport that is fed by the 11/19 buses so one bus change is all that would be required.
@cgcsb wrote:
5) The spurs you propose are only possible based on the resignalling project. Now here are the facts, the maximum permisable trains per hour on the Northern Line is currently 12 trains per hour. after the resignalling project is finished, (in 2012), the maximum will be 17 trains per hour. So that means that there will be 5 extra trains per hour to serve both the airport and Swords. Say 3 trains an hour to the airport and 2 trains an hour to Swords.
Building a spur to Swords would actually create capacity and not utilise it for the following reason; the proposal would be to build an overpass for the southbound DARTS from Swords to merge with the Northern line heading into the City. The effect of this would be to eliminate the requirement for Malahide DARTS to cross the Northern line into the path of oncoming trains. The Malahide services would no longer terminate in Malahide but in Swords which would ensure that they are crossing at a much queiter location. 😉
@cgcsb wrote:
And that is the absolute maximum, no room for expansion, after a short amount of time, the metro would become necessary anyway. Here’s the official info on resignalling: http://transport21.ie/Projects/Heavy_Rail/City_Centre_Resignalling_Project.html
IE proposed this as part of the Dublin Rail plan it is obviously considered feasible; many transit systems run trains at 2 minute intervals. It is conceded that Drogheda/Dundalk services require a five minute or so window to clear DARTS stopping at each station.
There would be two options either run
0800 Drogheda – No Stop until Airport Junction – 4 per hour
0802 Airport All stations 8 per hour
0804 Swords All Stations 8 per hour
0806 Howth All Stations 4 per hour
0808 Swords All Stations
0810 Airport All stations0815 Drogheda – No Stop until Airport Junction
This would deliver 24 trains per hour. There may be some loss in journey times for outer commuters of say 3-5 minutes; in the greater scheme of things it is a small price to pay for a system that electrifies to Balbriggan with the funds that could be diverted which in itself would claw back a minute at each station or 4 minutes.
@cgcsb wrote:
6) Admitedly, Dardistown, Lisenhal and Belinstown do not require a metro service. But you fail to realise that the only reason that Dardistown has a proposed metro stop is because it’s geographically in the way between the airport and ballymun. The only reaon there’s a stop in Belinstown is because it’s the nearest site to Swords that’s suitable for a terminus/depot.
Agreed but when you are discussing spending €2bn there is no room for locations by default; the alternative would be redeploy funds to
1. Electrification to Maynooth
2. Electrification to Pace
3. Electrification to Balbriggan
4. Dart to Tallaght on the proposed Metro west alignment
5. More Luas lines for Dublin and Cork@ihateawake wrote:
PVC, it seems you have decided you do not like this project and will not see beyond that. A luas to the airport? A joke, simple as that..
If you read my posts above you would see that what is proposed is full implementation of the Dublin Rail Plan [2004] in full plus an additional spur extending Dart to Swords.
It is a better solution because it gives direct trains to the airport from the main rail hub for the country Heuston as well as 4 other city centre stations.
Luas for Ballymun is what I also propose because Luas is perfectly adequate to support further development along what is a very restricted catchment in development terms.
@ihateawake wrote:
Neither of you are involved in the project, so neither of you are informed as far as cost goes, regardless of your profession. .
We don’t know the cost but taking the passenger assumptions for the project as being 24.4m as per the cost benefit analysis and the most recent costs given of €2bn together with a discount to the cost of government debt and you get an annual subvention that at best will be €4.10 per passenger journey. That is way too high going by international standards just to cover finance costs and fully excludes operational losses.
@ihateawake wrote:
PVC, dropping investment in a recession is not wise, which is why every country on earth has implemented stimulus. Show me one successful large economic center that does not have a functional rail network..
Agreed Dublin needs a functional rail network just as each City in Ireland needs a functional public transport. If €2bn is committed to this project there will be an opportunity cost.
There is a difference between stimulus i.e. building a road around every field in the land as done during the famine to create articficial employment and targetted investment in viable projects. I advocate
1. c€2bn for the interconnector
2. c€150m to connect Dart to Swords
3. c€190m to connect Dart to the airport
4. c€234m to connect Luas to Ballymun
5. c€100m to be invested in signalling on the Northern line from Connolly to DonabateIf costs for the above (excluding interconnector) over-ran by €250m it wouldn’t be a disaster as all of metro’s functions have been replaced at less than half the cost
I also support completion of the inter-urban road programme to Cork and Galway; but the dual carriageway to Waterford should also be binned due to altered circumstances.
Use what is saved to
1. Electrify Dart to Maynooth / Pace
2. Electrify Dart to Balbriggan
3. Build a Dart spur to Tallaght using the proposed Metro west alignment from Clondalkin
4. Build a station at the junction to the airport for Belfast services to connect to the NI network and encourage further route development at Dublin Airport
5. Build a base Luas system for Cork
6. Reshape development plans in Cork, Galway and Limerick to encourage suburban railAn intergrated system would involve step 1 Luas in Cork, step 2 train to Heuston, step 3 Dart to the airport
Spend a high proportion of the transport budget on Metro North and people outside Dublin will be less likely to take mainline rail to the airport.
Having done a thesis on Dublin Airport I have looked at it from a lot of angles.
Grow up you utter freak
@ihateawake wrote:
PVC, it seems you have decided you do not like this project and will not see beyond that. A luas to the airport? A joke, simple as that..
If you read my posts above you would see that what is proposed is full implementation of the Dublin Rail Plan [2004] in full plus an additional spur extending Dart to Swords.
It is a better solution because it gives direct trains to the airport from the main rail hub for the country Heuston as well as 4 other city centre stations.
Luas for Ballymun is what I also propose because Luas is perfectly adequate to support further development along what is a very restricted catchment in development terms.
@ihateawake wrote:
Neither of you are involved in the project, so neither of you are informed as far as cost goes, regardless of your profession. .
We don’t know the cost but taking the passenger assumptions for the project as being 24.4m as per the cost benefit analysis and the most recent costs given of €2bn together with a discount to the cost of government debt and you get an annual subvention that at best will be €4.10 per passenger journey. That is way too high going by international standards just to cover finance costs and fully excludes operational losses.
@ihateawake wrote:
PVC, dropping investment in a recession is not wise, which is why every country on earth has implemented stimulus. Show me one successful large economic center that does not have a functional rail network..
Agreed Dublin needs a functional rail network just as each City in Ireland needs a functional public transport. If €2bn is committed to this project there will be an opportunity cost.
There is a difference between stimulus i.e. building a road around every field in the land as done during the famine to create articficial employment and targetted investment in viable projects. I advocate
1. c€2bn for the interconnector
2. c€150m to connect Dart to Swords
3. c€190m to connect Dart to the airport
4. c€234m to connect Luas to Ballymun
5. c€100m to be invested in signalling on the Northern line from Connolly to DonabateIf costs for the above (excluding interconnector) over-ran by €250m it wouldn’t be a disaster as all of metro’s functions have been replaced at less than half the cost
I also support completion of the inter-urban road programme to Cork and Galway; but the dual carriageway to Waterford should also be binned due to altered circumstances.
Use what is saved to
1. Electrify Dart to Maynooth / Pace
2. Electrify Dart to Balbriggan
3. Build a Dart spur to Tallaght using the proposed Metro west alignment from Clondalkin
4. Build a station at the junction to the airport for Belfast services to connect to the NI network and encourage further route development at Dublin Airport
5. Build a base Luas system for Cork
6. Reshape development plans in Cork, Galway and Limerick to encourage suburban railAn intergrated system would involve step 1 Luas in Cork, step 2 train to Heuston, step 3 Dart to the airport
Spend a high proportion of the transport budget on Metro North and people outside Dublin will be less likely to take mainline rail to the airport.
Friday, July 10, 2009 Dempsey confident on Metro North
I wouldn’t worry about a silly season article
Originally Posted by marmajam
Once you take to fantasy and invented costings it tends to mean you’re backing a loser.You say that by building a spur from the Malahide DART as an extension of the Interconnector, with enhanced signalling for higher frequency of services, the purpose of Metro North will be achieved with savings of 1,550 million Euros.
(Meaning the spur plus signalling costs 450m)There is nothing fantasy about taking two rail projects currently under construction and applying those construction rates; it is called comparative analysis.
€2bn – €574m to build a Luas to Ballmun and 2 seperate spur lines to the Airport and Swords; the €100m was for additional signalling which will be needed anyway.
If the contingencies were not used the savings would be even higher; a saving of €1,326m is a minimum saving.
Originally Posted by marmajam
That is wildly incorrect.At this time the final contract for MN is now expected to be in the region of 1.75 billion.
The source of this quote is? I forgot redaction press services ltd.
Originally Posted by marmajam
You have forgotten that you proposed a Luas to Ballymun as an alternative ‘high quality’ transport system.Luas to Ballymun is high quality or are you saying that the density on O’Connell Street to Ballymun is higher than Stephens Green to Sandyford? Your costing at €500m for this section would have seen the original Luas project cost close to €2bn on a cost per kilometer basis.
Originally Posted by marmajam
Such a proposed line would have to go to the airport. It alone would cost in the region of 500 million.The Pace extension at 7.5 kms or a cost of €160m on a project that is both longer and has simliar issues such as land acquisition and crossing major roads. Again double contingency was built in.
Originally Posted by marmajam
A white elephant between Dublin CC and the airport via Santry/Ballymun that allows no growth and congests the area further.Show me one city where the strips of land parrallel to the runway of an airport is high density housing; for the most efficient operation of a city land use beside air and sea ports is reserved for logisitics and distribution uses.
Originally Posted by marmajam
When the earlier London tube lines were built – particularly the Metropolitan/District lines…..large sections of them were built through GREEN fields.Show me one section of the Met or District lines that was built under 3 bed semi’s or green fields excluding parks. The Pace extension is the type of project as to how the met and to a lessor extent the district line found themselves in green fields. Building spurs off the northern line hits the same result but at a cost that is €1,326m lower.
Originally Posted by marmajam
IE will have to rebuild bridges on the Kildare line ( incorrect, already done),Wire support structures still required.
Originally Posted by marmajam
that all ‘tube’ lines only use a 3rd rail (wrong – many major cities use overhead power lines),You claimed that overhead was the only way to go before claiming that New York, Chicago, Paris and London ressembled Timbuktu.
Originally Posted by marmajam
that the RPA had designed the project with no outside expertise (wrong – Turner and Townsend world leaders were consultants).The RPA as an agency have never built a metro they chose a condsultancy who do not according to their website claim to be the greatest
http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/Ful…uts.aspx?m=141It is not the consultants who shape projects, it is the instructions they receive which in the case of this project have gone from spend as much as you like to do the cheapest job possible. Interestingly this is the only project they don’t put a value on; that speaks volumes
Originally Posted by marmajam
it was only a Luas line (wrong it has 4 times the capacity of Luas),It is not able to take other networks by virtue of only having the same guage as Luas; it is therefore only comparable to luas if anything at all.
Originally Posted by marmajam
it would’nt connect with any other system (wrong it connects with DART, Luas Red etc),The Dart network only goes from Greystones to Malahide/Howth, if the interconnector is built then it would connect with Dart. It would connect with the Luas Red Line but within 15 minutes walk of its terminus.
Originally Posted by marmajam
that the CBAs were predicated on ‘celtic tiger growth (wrong they were calculated on historic growth)……..The Celtic Tiger commenced in Q4 1993 or ten years before the CBA was written; it took Celtic Tiger period figures because any other figures would be more relevant to the next 10 years looking forward i.e. 1983 – 1993. I wish it were different and that Nama weren’t the elephant in the room but decisions were taken and that is a more realisitic outcome if public finances are not rigidly controlled.
Given that an answer like “your mother shops in a skip” is likely to be your answer to the above; I am not going to bother to respond as you are living in the past. The future is about measured investment not that you will be investing your own money to beat the market.
First bluster and then ignorance……….
It is clear you are incapable of a rational argument; posting articles that have already been added and discussed as new makes it clear the Metro North argument doesn’t work.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0802/nama.html
The above is where the money will be required; 3 years finance costs in one day. Spending the money on job creation will actually repair the taxbase, metro north will damage it further
@marmajam wrote:
Once you take to fantasy and invented costings it tends to mean you’re backing a loser.
You say that by building a spur from the Malahide DART as an extension of the Interconnector, with enhanced signalling for higher frequency of services, the purpose of Metro North will be achieved with savings of 1,550 million Euros.
(Meaning the spur plus signalling costs 450m)There is nothing fantasy about taking two rail projects currently under construction and applying those construction rates; it is called comparative analysis.
€2bn – €574m to build a Luas to Ballmun and 2 seperate spur lines to the Airport and Swords; the €100m was for additional signalling which will be needed anyway.
If the contingencies were not used the savings would be even higher; a saving of €1,326m is a minimum saving.
@marmajam wrote:
That is wildly incorrect.
At this time the final contract for MN is now expected to be in the region of 1.75 billion.
The source of this quote is? I forgot redaction press services ltd.
@marmajam wrote:
You have forgotten that you proposed a Luas to Ballymun as an alternative ‘high quality’ transport system.
Luas to Ballymun is high quality or are you saying that the density on O’Connell Street to Ballymun is higher than Stephens Green to Sandyford? Your costing at €500m for this section would have seen the original Luas project cost close to €2bn on a cost per kilometer basis.
@marmajam wrote:
Such a proposed line would have to go to the airport. It alone would cost in the region of 500 million.
The Pace extension at 7.5 kms or a cost of €160m on a project that is both longer and has simliar issues such as land acquisition and crossing major roads. Again double contingency was built in.
@marmajam wrote:
A white elephant between Dublin CC and the airport via Santry/Ballymun that allows no growth and congests the area further.
Show me one city where the strips of land parrallel to the runway of an airport is high density housing; for the most efficient operation of a city land use beside air and sea ports is reserved for logisitics and distribution uses.
@marmajam wrote:
When the earlier London tube lines were built – particularly the Metropolitan/District lines…..large sections of them were built through GREEN fields.
Show me one section of the Met or District lines that was built under 3 bed semi’s or green fields excluding parks. The Pace extension is the type of project as to how the met and to a lessor extent the district line found themselves in green fields. Building spurs off the northern line hits the same result but at a cost that is €1,326m lower.
@marmajam wrote:
IE will have to rebuild bridges on the Kildare line ( incorrect, already done),
Wire support structures still required.
@marmajam wrote:
that all ‘tube’ lines only use a 3rd rail (wrong – many major cities use overhead power lines),
You claimed that overhead was the only way to go before claiming that New York, Chicago, Paris and London ressembled Timbuktu.
@marmajam wrote:
that the RPA had designed the project with no outside expertise (wrong – Turner and Townsend world leaders were consultants).
The RPA as an agency have never built a metro they chose a condsultancy who do not according to their website claim to be the greatest
http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/FullStoryWithTouts.aspx?m=141It is not the consultants who shape projects, it is the instructions they receive which in the case of this project have gone from spend as much as you like to do the cheapest job possible. Interestingly this is the only project they don’t put a value on; that speaks volumes
@marmajam wrote:
it was only a Luas line (wrong it has 4 times the capacity of Luas),
It is not able to take other networks by virtue of only having the same guage as Luas; it is therefore only comparable to luas if anythi8ng at all.
@marmajam wrote:
it would’nt connect with any other system (wrong it connects with DART, Luas Red etc),
The Dart network only goes from Greystones to Malahide/Howth, if the interconnector is built then it would connect with Dart. It would connect with the Luas Red Line but within 15 minutes walk of its terminus.
@marmajam wrote:
that the CBAs were predicated on ‘celtic tiger growth (wrong they were calculated on historic growth)……..
The Celtic Tiger commenced in Q4 1993 or ten years before the CBA was written; it took Celtic Tiger period figures because any other figures would be more relevant to the next 10 years looking forward i.e. 1983 – 1993. I wish it were different and that Nama weren’t the elephant in the room but decisions were taken and that is a more realisitic outcome if public finances are not rigidly controlled.
Given that an answer like “your mother shops in a skip” is likely to be your answer to the above; I am not going to bother to respond as you are living in the past. The future is about measured investment not that you will be investing your own money to beat the market.
@marmajam wrote:
Once you take to fantasy and invented costings it tends to mean you’re backing a loser.
You say that by building a spur from the Malahide DART as an extension of the Interconnector, with enhanced signalling for higher frequency of services, the purpose of Metro North will be achieved with savings of 1,550 million Euros.
(Meaning the spur plus signalling costs 450m)There is nothing fantasy about taking two rail projects currently under construction and applying those construction rates; it is called comparative analysis.
€2bn – €574m to build a Luas to Ballmun and 2 seperate spur lines to the Airport and Swords; the €100m was for additional signalling which will be needed anyway.
If the contingencies were not used the savings would be even higher; a saving of €1,326m is a minimum saving.
@marmajam wrote:
That is wildly incorrect.
At this time the final contract for MN is now expected to be in the region of 1.75 billion.
The source of this quote is? I forgot redaction press services ltd.
@marmajam wrote:
You have forgotten that you proposed a Luas to Ballymun as an alternative ‘high quality’ transport system.
Luas to Ballymun is high quality or are you saying that the density on O’Connell Street to Ballymun is higher than Stephens Green to Sandyford? Your costing at €500m for this section would have seen the original Luas project cost close to €2bn on a cost per kilometer basis.
@marmajam wrote:
Such a proposed line would have to go to the airport. It alone would cost in the region of 500 million.
The Pace extension at 7.5 kms or a cost of €160m on a project that is both longer and has simliar issues such as land acquisition and crossing major roads. Again double contingency was built in.
@marmajam wrote:
A white elephant between Dublin CC and the airport via Santry/Ballymun that allows no growth and congests the area further.
Show me one city where the strips of land parrallel to the runway of an airport is high density housing; for the most efficient operation of a city land use beside air and sea ports is reserved for logisitics and distribution uses.
@marmajam wrote:
When the earlier London tube lines were built – particularly the Metropolitan/District lines…..large sections of them were built through GREEN fields.
Show me one section of the Met or District lines that was built under 3 bed semi’s or green fields excluding parks. The Pace extension is the type of project as to how the met and to a lessor extent the district line found themselves in green fields. Building spurs off the northern line hits the same result but at a cost that is €1,326m lower.
@marmajam wrote:
IE will have to rebuild bridges on the Kildare line ( incorrect, already done),
Wire support structures still required.
@marmajam wrote:
that all ‘tube’ lines only use a 3rd rail (wrong – many major cities use overhead power lines),
You claimed that overhead was the only way to go before claiming that New York, Chicago, Paris and London ressembled Timbuktu.
@marmajam wrote:
that the RPA had designed the project with no outside expertise (wrong – Turner and Townsend world leaders were consultants).
The RPA as an agency have never built a metro they chose a condsultancy who do not according to their website claim to be the greatest
http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/FullStoryWithTouts.aspx?m=141It is not the consultants who shape projects, it is the instructions they receive which in the case of this project have gone from spend as much as you like to do the cheapest job possible. Interestingly this is the only project they don’t put a value on; that speaks volumes
@marmajam wrote:
it was only a Luas line (wrong it has 4 times the capacity of Luas),
It is not able to take other networks by virtue of only having the same guage as Luas; it is therefore only comparable to luas if anythi8ng at all.
@marmajam wrote:
it would’nt connect with any other system (wrong it connects with DART, Luas Red etc),
The Dart network only goes from Greystones to Malahide/Howth, if the interconnector is built then it would connect with Dart. It would connect with the Luas Red Line but within 15 minutes walk of its terminus.
@marmajam wrote:
that the CBAs were predicated on ‘celtic tiger growth (wrong they were calculated on historic growth)……..
The Celtic Tiger commenced in Q4 1993 or ten years before the CBA was written; it took Celtic Tiger period figures because any other figures would be more relevant to the next 10 years looking forward i.e. 1983 – 1993. I wish it were different and that Nama weren’t the elephant in the room but decisions were taken and that is a more realisitic outcome if public finances are not rigidly controlled.
Given that an answer like “your mother shops in a skip” is likely to be your answer to the above; I am not going to bother to respond as you are living in the past. The future is about measured investment not that you will be investing your own money to beat the market.
I have never said that the system was devoid of AHU’s
The problem with this project is the overall concept of building an underground Luas gauge underground system on a route that does not provide
1. The passenger loadings
2. The development potential to provide the passenger loadingsNo amount of spin will be able to prove that the costs of an underground system on this alingment stand up on cost benefit analysis; particularly when that CBA was done in 2003 http://www.transport21.ie/Publications/upload/File/FOI/Dublin_Metro_Project_Revised_Proposal_June_2003.pdf
And when it is so heavily redacted that it is a meaningless document due to the absence of any costs and projects a total of 24.4m annual passenger journeys.
Wind the clock forward to 2009
1. Fiscal position – deficits projected for a decade
2. Western Rail Corridor now found to be unviable – CBA passed by the same department of Transport found that project viable as well.
3. Passenger numbers declining significantly at Dublin Airport
4. QBC completed with journey times accross the City from Dublin 4 to the Airport now a creditable 30 mins
5. Development contributions have now collapsed with the focus being on employment vs squeezing NAMA another government agency of funds which will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer
6. Alternative to Swords – there is no consideration of the spur options in the report; Swords is c4.5kms from the Northern line allowing for a cost if the Dunboyne extension is comparable of c €96m add another €24m to allow for a bridge over the M1 and you have a cost of €120m add 25% contingency and it is still below €150m
7. Alternative to Airport – there is no consideration of the spur options in the report; The Airport is less than 4 miles from the Northern line allowing for a cost if the Dunboyne extension is comparable of c €128m add another €22m to allow for a bridge over the M1 and you have a cost of €150m add 25% contingency and it is still below €190m
8. Alternative to Ballymun – there is no consideration of the Luas option in the report; Ballymun is less than 6.5 kms from the BX extension to O’Connell Street; taking a cost of €54m per 1.5kms on the point depot extension which were a lot more complicated in that removal of the Sherriff Street Viaduct and construction of a major bridge was required. Then a cost of €234m looks excessive.
Add in €100m for resignalling the Northern line from Connolly to Donabate and the total cost of the alternatives comes to €674m with significant contingencies built in.
The history of commuter rail in Ireland has always featured upgrades in the region of €50m to €400m in return for project lengths of 5 miles to 12 miles.
The interconnector can be split 5 ways in terms of benefit if the Dunboyne / Navan extension is included. Projected user levels are 100m passengers per annum
Metro cannot be split it is a single route that at 24.4m projected passengers simply cannot justify that level of cost.
All you are asked to do is produce some figures that prove that the finance costs of €100m p.a. are justified in the context of projected passenger loadings of 24.4m or subsidy of €4.10 per passenger assuming that it breaks even operationally. That excludes likely operational losses depreciation etc
An infrastructural project should be the end project of a scoping exercise balancing the capacity required existing demand, development potential and cost versus alternative methods of providing the same capacity. €4.10 per passenger in annual finance costs alone clearly displays that someone got this project very badly wrong.
As always more hot air
Midleton Rail line cost €75m
Swords could be done for probably €30m a mile or €90m absolute tops; I have embellished this with a 40% contingency
The airport could be done for €30m a mile where a contingency of €110m on top of an inflated cost equating to fuill motorway cost has been given
Allowing €100m change for signalling
Luas to Point €54m for a mile in length; as BX goes to O’Connell Street leaving a total distance less than 4 miles or a cost of €216m
I am confident that if the first two projects were managed prudently that costs could be less than €300m on those and if the RPA managed the Ballymun Luas it could be done for €150 a long way from the €500m you suggest it would cost to get a luas line from O’Connell Street to Ballymun; on that basis the metro would cost the €5bn the RPA originally costed.
@marmajam wrote:
The objective is to “position the Dublin city region, the engine of Ireland’s economy, as a significant hub in the European knowledge economy through a network of thriving sectoral and spatial clusters providing a magnet for creative talent and investment”.
This ties in with the Government’s new Smart Economy policy, which focuses on translating innovation into valuable processes, products and services.
20,000 jobs per year = 200,000 sq m of offices and 15,000 homes.
Spatial clusters each to accomodate 35,000 sq m
1. Spencer Dock – Interconnector
2. Heuston Station – Interconnector
3. Park West / Inchicore – Interconnector
4. Dublin Airport – Spur from Northern Line
5. Cherrywood – Luas line
6. Blanchardstown – Maynooth lineResidential districts each to deliver 3,000 homes
1. North Docklands – Interconnector
2. Adamstown – Interconnector
3. Leixlip – Interconnector
4. Pace – Interconnector
5. North Fringe – InterconnectorIf the £1,550m saving were spent on attracting the jobs in the form of incentives and post grad education and not a €2bn underground luas line the plan would be a lot more viable.
