Western Rail Corridor

Schuhart

MLM wrote:

add a billion for the M50 upgrade, 600 million for the toll booths, and a billion for the airport, you get close to that figure.

I'd just query this bit. For starters, is the proposed investment in Dublin Airport part of Transport 21? I can only see reference to investment in regional airports on that site, presumably as the investment in regional airports comes out of taxpayers money whereas Dublin Airport investment (correct me if wrong) will be funded by the DAA's own resources.

Also, when we chuck in the M50 upgrade and Westlink buyout, do we not expect that a fair chunk of that cost will be funded by user charges? Also, is there not an expectation that much of the public transport to be delivered in Dublin will be via Public Private Partnerships, suggesting that - like Luas - user charges will be making a significant contribution to costs.

Boiling it all down, is there a risk that your rough calculation is taking projects in Dublin that will be ultimately funded by user charges and presenting that as if taxpayers money was being used? If we're talking (basically) about resources raised by user charges in Dublin funding the facilities those people use, its hardly an example of misallocation of resources. Fair enough, taxpayers money needs to be distributed in line with national priorities. But it would be a bit rich if the Westlink toll was used to build the WRC.

Do you think you might need to reflect on this again?

MLM

Schuhart wrote:

I'd just query this bit. For starters, is the proposed investment in Dublin Airport part of Transport 21? I can only see reference to investment in regional airports on that site, presumably as the investment in regional airports comes out of taxpayers money whereas Dublin Airport investment (correct me if wrong) will be funded by the DAA's own resources.

Also, when we chuck in the M50 upgrade and Westlink buyout, do we not expect that a fair chunk of that cost will be funded by user charges? Also, is there not an expectation that much of the public transport to be delivered in Dublin will be via Public Private Partnerships, suggesting that - like Luas - user charges will be making a significant contribution to costs.

Boiling it all down, is there a risk that your rough calculation is taking projects in Dublin that will be ultimately funded by user charges and presenting that as if taxpayers money was being used? If we're talking (basically) about resources raised by user charges in Dublin funding the facilities those people use, its hardly an example of misallocation of resources. Fair enough, taxpayers money needs to be distributed in line with national priorities. But it would be a bit rich if the Westlink toll was used to build the WRC.

Do you think you might need to reflect on this again?

Most of the above is payed for by the taxpayer. As for public transport. 15 billion for the GDA and 1 billion for every where else? Is it suitable funding for balanced regional development?

Schuhart

MLM wrote:

Most of the above is payed for by the taxpayer. As for public transport. 15 billion for the GDA and 1 billion for every where else?

I'm not clear on what you mean by 'most of the above'. Am I wrong in thinking that Dublin Airport users will ultimately pay for investment there - and are already committed to covering most of the cost of Cork's new terminal, along with Shannon's terminal and the cost of restructuring in Shannon?

Similarly on the Westlink buyout, to take another case you've raised, I'm conscious firstly that the toll is still being charged and, as I understand it, when the barriers are finally lifted they'll be replaced by a comprehensive barrier free toll along the M50. I can't recall seeing how much that barrier free toll is expected to raise, but I'm interested if you've something solid to go on.

As regards '15 Billion for Dublin and 1 Billion for everywhere else', assuming that to be the correct division, you'd really need to drill into the detail to see if this is, in fact, a misallocation. The simple fact is that Dublin’s transport infrastructure bears no relationship to what might be expected in a city of its size. At the other end of the scale, there was a letter to the paper recently comparing Dublin’s inadequate setup to Munich’s 6 underground and 10 suburban rail lines.

On the other hand, as I think featured in a recent thread here or in infrastructure, there’s nothing particularly unusual about cites the size of Limerick or Galway not having rail based public transport. Hence, the glaring inadequacy is in Dublin.

Could the accumulated cost of Dublin’s neglect be 15 billion? Possibly. Could 15 billion vs 1 billion reflect the extent to which the infrastructure gap is widest in the East? Possibly. Certainly if the WRC is the most pressing rail project in the West, it’s hardly a surprise if we find proposals for the East just make vastly more sense. I remember seeing somewhere that the proposed Cork commuter services actually came out with the highest potential economic return from objective analysis. Outside of Cork, is there any area with an equally worthwhile case?

To show Transport 21 has a Dublin imbalance, you'd have to show the GDA being riddled with WRC-like projects that won't attract passengers while more worthwhile projects elsewhere go unfunded. That does not seem to correspond with reality in any way.

MLM

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not clear on what you mean by 'most of the above'. Am I wrong in thinking that Dublin Airport users will ultimately pay for investment there - and are already committed to covering most of the cost of Cork's new terminal, along with Shannon's terminal and the cost of restructuring in Shannon?

Similarly on the Westlink buyout, to take another case you've raised, I'm conscious firstly that the toll is still being charged and, as I understand it, when the barriers are finally lifted they'll be replaced by a comprehensive barrier free toll along the M50. I can't recall seeing how much that barrier free toll is expected to raise, but I'm interested if you've something solid to go on.

As regards '15 Billion for Dublin and 1 Billion for everywhere else', assuming that to be the correct division, you'd really need to drill into the detail to see if this is, in fact, a misallocation. The simple fact is that Dublin’s transport infrastructure bears no relationship to what might be expected in a city of its size. At the other end of the scale, there was a letter to the paper recently comparing Dublin’s inadequate setup to Munich’s 6 underground and 10 suburban rail lines.

On the other hand, as I think featured in a recent thread here or in infrastructure, there’s nothing particularly unusual about cites the size of Limerick or Galway not having rail based public transport. Hence, the glaring inadequacy is in Dublin.

Could the accumulated cost of Dublin’s neglect be 15 billion? Possibly. Could 15 billion vs 1 billion reflect the extent to which the infrastructure gap is widest in the East? Possibly. Certainly if the WRC is the most pressing rail project in the West, it’s hardly a surprise if we find proposals for the East just make vastly more sense. I remember seeing somewhere that the proposed Cork commuter services actually came out with the highest potential economic return from objective analysis. Outside of Cork, is there any area with an equally worthwhile case?

To show Transport 21 has a Dublin imbalance, you'd have to show the GDA being riddled with WRC-like projects that won't attract passengers while more worthwhile projects elsewhere go unfunded. That does not seem to correspond with reality in any way.

I guess the key problem is the accumulated cost of Dublin's neglect. The delivery of a modern public transport system is costing far more than it should due to poor planning and funding decisions made over the past 25 years. My biggest fear is that our regional cities are now being subjected to a similar short-sightedness, which will lead to problems in the future, problems that will be far more expensive to solve.
I think linking Limerick and Galway by rail is a good idea. It's a journey that I and many people I know, would like to have made, several times, in the past; but were unable to do so due to its abscence (got stuck with Bus Eireann for four and a half hours). North of Galway simply doesn't have the population. However a lot more needs to be done in terms of public transport in our regional cities, as the service in all four cities is terrible (believe me, using public transport in Dublin is heaven, in comparison). Transport 21 will not do nearly enough to remedy this situation.

dowlingm

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Not a bad guess daveirl - CSO 2006: Dublin 1.18 million, Meath 162k, Wicklow 126k, Kildare 186k
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popofeachprovcountycity2006.htm

Schuhart

MLM wrote:

My biggest fear is that our regional cities are now being subjected to a similar short-sightedness, which will lead to problems in the future, problems that will be far more expensive to solve.

That's a potential risk, but rail may just not be a part of the solution yet. If it is, it should show up in the numbers. I've never seen anyone crib about the proposed Cork commuter services as the numbers simply add up.

MLM wrote:

I think linking Limerick and Galway by rail is a good idea.

Possibly it is but, like the proposed Cork and Duboyne projects, the numbers have to stack up. My problem with Limerick-Galway is simply that the case has not been substantiated. I'm not assuming that poor usage of Limerick-Waterford or the low level of local traffic on Limerick-Ennis (i.e. the portion of travellers who aren't travelling Ennis-Dublin) means Limerick-Galway is pointless. I am saying it opens a reasonable doubt that needs to be addressed with facts and analysis. Possibly a better solution to Limerick-Galway involves roads and buses. (If memory serves there was a recent article in a Clare newspaper reported some Department of Transport documents that suggested exactly this - that investment in roads would actually yield more benefit).

MLM wrote:

a lot more needs to be done in terms of public transport in our regional cities

Absolutely, and in general regional policy needs to focus on the regional cities. That's the source of the problem and I worry that the tendancy to compare to Dublin distracts from this being vocalised and addressed. People in regional cities should be more bothered about the WRC and what that says about regional policy. But the 'Dublin Dublin Dublin' rhetoric tends to support a mindset that won't question expenditure, no matter how pointless or destructive, once its not in the GDA.

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

If memory serves there was a recent article in a Clare newspaper reported some Department of Transport documents that suggested exactly this - that investment in roads would actually yield more benefit).

Here is the relevant article from the Clare People. The key points, IMHO, are:

- the Limerick-Galway service is not expected to attract many punters; the ultimate expectation is 200,000 p.a. or 600 passengers spread over seven services a day in each direction.

- The service would require a high subsidy by comparison to other rail services.

- The expected rail journey between Limerick and Galway would be one hour and 50 minutes compared to the one hour and 22-minute drive between the city perimeters by 2014.

- Iarnród Éireann’s business case concedes that the scale of infrastructure costs along with the ongoing annual operating costs mean the projected passenger levels will not be adequate to generate a positive socio-economic result. The business case stated that the “economic return on the project is poor due to relatively modest volumes”.

You’ll understand, if objective analysis suggests it’s not a runner, then it’s just not a runner and we’d be better off investing the money elsewhere if linking Galway and Limerick is our aim. I’m open to contradiction, but you’ll understand that contradiction has to amount to more than ‘I’m sure me and me mates would use it if it was there’ or ‘I was stuck on a bus for hours once’.

Contradiction has to be based on some kind of objective evidence that if you link up two cities of this size and that distance apart with a rail service that will ultimately be 30 minutes slower than road, its reasonable to expect a high level of patronage. I’m not sure that evidence exists, but I’m open to being proven wrong.

popebenny16

My understanding is that Bill Murray will be driving the first train.

dowlingm

The problem is that our politicians in a mindset of "let's build all these projects like mad and then we're done" as if there's some kind of rail equivalent to a Peace Dividend.

Instead the mindset should be "we are always building something". We're building double track to Greystones or New Ross LRT or Midleton extension to Youghal or Patrickswell commuter or Shannon Airport direct link - whatever. There should be permanent expansion engineering teams at IE and RPA for ever amen, completely separate from "state of good repair", and with a guaranteed flow of capital - just like NRA.

With that scenario, it is easier to persuade people that the Limerick line won't stop at Athenry even if the numbers demand it goes to Tuam, or that Athlone-Mullingar would reopen if proper planning was done etc.

At the moment, it's easy to see why people are yelling to get their pet project squeezed in before the tap gets shut off completely and IE/RPA lose their engineers to companies that are actually building stuff.

By the way - anyone who still trusts Mayo CC or any of the others beholden to one-off housing for votes will ever build the density required to support a full WRC should check out the article today about Bev Cooper Flynn's partner buying out a one-off planning permission to build a holiday home.

corktina

I think it is essential that the Limerick line DOES stop at Athenry.....or at least thats it's trains do......:D

DerekP11

Do any of you ever get bored with all this WRC ****e????

Let them build it. Who cares anymore? Roll on the trains from Limerick to Galway, stopping at boreen ****holes that make somalia look good!

The subject is boring. They'll do it anyway, except Claremorris to Cooloney, because they want it in the west, like the cure for cancer!

LOOK WEST!!!.

Schuhart

It’s not just about the WRC. It’s the view that tries to pretend that Dublin developments are examples of untold largesse paid for by rackrented peasants from Mayo that needs challenging. Honestly, allowing those fantasies to go uncorrected perpetuates a mindset that obstructs necessary developments that are actually good for people.

According to the McCann report, Ennis to Athenry costs €75million. This is for 200k passengers or €375 each. Just as a rough comparison, that’s twelve and a half times what was spent building the Luas per passenger. Yet the mindset that the WRC is a total bargain the like of which could not be found in Dublin is stated and unquestioned.

And that’s not to address how much of an annual subsidy Galway-Limerick will require. The reality has to leak out some time that regions find it relatively easier to get money as they don’t have to meet economic criteria. Discussion of WRC is boring, but unfortunately necessary.

dermo88

Schuhart.

I hate having to pull you there on accounting conventions.

When you buy a house, it costs you 300,000 Euro now. But you intend living in it for 25 years. Thats how long the mortgage lasts. The mortgage costs you 12,000 Euro per annum.

In this case Ennis to Athenry costs 75 Million Euro. Its lifespan before reconstruction and renewal is required is 30 years minimum. Thats 2.5 Million Euro. For 200,000 passengers, thats 12 Euro 50 cent per passenger, and per passenger kilometre, over the 46 kilometres of its length, 27 cent ppkm.

Thats before I throw in all the other boring stuff, such as operational costs.

Schuhart

Dermo

I've no problem with your application of some refinement to the figures, and of course you are right to point out that the capital investment is not all related to one year.

However, the main point I was making was just that a crude comparision to Luas gives some sense of proportion to how Limerick - Galway involves a whole load of money being spent for very few passengers. I take it that point survives the approach you suggest as the capital investment in Luas is presumably also more correctly allocated over a number of years.

If Luas also lasts 30 years (and I've no idea if it should) the per passenger capital cost would be something of the order of €1 per annum, as against €12.50 for Limerick - Galway.

You'll understand, this is a crude comparison and I'd welcome anything that would make for a more meaningful comparison - perhaps a comparsion to the figures for Cork commuter rail. But I think it does highlight that the project amounts to quite a significant investment given the rather paltry expected passenger load.

dermo88

The best basis for comparison for any transport project is the lowest common denominator. That includes anyone who is purchasing a car. It is the cost per passenger kilometer. This includes fixed costs, which are unavoidable, such as infrastructure. Variable costs above that are operational costs.

Over time, there will be growth in Limerick to Galway. The timings will be improved as adjustments are made. Its not going to be instant. Frankly, its a service IE should have had when they closed the original Ballina to Limerick service in 1976, which was a useless once a day service.

You then take the farebox receipts, and then you get the farebox ratio.

Theres many more factors involved.

Luas will last 30 years before it needs an upgrade or replacement of some kind

It cost 746 Million Euro for 29 kilometers of track.
It carries around 20 Million passengers per annum.
The unit cost, per passenger kilometer is 4.2 cent.
Its a shorter distance, and more intensive as well. Operational costs are much higher, but the farebox ratio is positive. Thats unusual by worldwide standards, with only Hong Kong achieving that off the top of my head.

Cork Commuter rail. Again, 30 year lifespan, 500,000 users per annum, cost 150 Million Euro, distance 8 kilometers. 1 Euro 25 cent per passenger kilometer.

BUT, like a mortgage the costs drop over time, and the initial financial pain dies off. Thats why rail is so effective when its appropriate. Buses are a cheapskate solution that fail to get people out of their cars, and are not reliable enough. They have their place most of the time in rural areas, not all the time.

Feel free to correct my figures. I'm learning as I go along.

MarkoP11

Cork rail project is looking at 8 million per annum extra over the baseline of 500k so the numbers are very impressive and there is a operating profit projected

dermo88

Thanks Marko, I was remembering figures from memory, and it was a bit fuzzy. I suspected there was something wrong with the figures for Midleton, 1 Euro 25 capital cost per passenger kilometer seemed bad value for money. 7.5 cent on the other hand is excellent.

Victor

Careful with the passenger km figures. It doesn't make sense to have people travel in from Midleton (or whereever), when they could live in the city. Same number of journeys, fewer km.

OTK

dermo88 wrote:

The best basis for comparison for any transport project is the lowest common denominator. That includes anyone who is purchasing a car. It is the cost per passenger kilometer.

I can't agree with this.

Say the government has a choice between building one of two transport systems that either
a) allows 100 people to travel 100km to get to work
or
b) allows 1000 people to travel 10km to work
then these choices both represent 10,000 passenger-km, but do you think that they both bring the same socio-economic benefit to the state?

Like Victor, I would suggest that the benefit of a transport system should be roughly measured in how many functional journeys they facilitate.

As an aside and not relevant to the argument, I think you have a small error in your numbers for the Luas which had 26m passengers last year, cost 775m to build and is 24km long.

cost: http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/6511-0.pdf
passengers: http://www.luas.ie/faqs.php
length: http://transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7635&lang=ENG&loc=1888

Victor

Also note that not all passengers will travel the full length (unless you only have two stops:)).

dermo88

OTK

I can see your basis for disagreement, but I have simplified matters in order to fit them on the thread. I know there are more variables involved. Its just I can give baselines or rough figures, and work from there. But I still have to use passenger kilometers per annum as a basis. Theres savings in fuel saved, distances travelled, time saved, lower costs for A vs B. It takes too long to do that. I can do rough figures that will still hold the attention of the reader. If a post is too long, then its failed in its purpose.

My agenda is getting value for money. Getting the best system, and winning hearts and minds. Platform11 have won my heart and mind, Brian Guckian sadly has not, and I am not alone.

I've glanced through various transport reports over the years, and the statistical software packages needed such as SPSS can give better results.

I'm not an expert, but reasonably well informed on the issues at hand.

The experts have done their job, we'll just debate on it.

MarkoP11

Passenger km is not really a good metric when you consider that the bulk of journeys in Cork and Dublin are quite short as in distance terms where as journeys elewhere are quite long

It really simple terms this is what you need

Total projected carryings (or increase over baseline) after 5 years
Total capital cost
Optionally
Some value per passenger trip as in postive/negative depending on the profit/subsidy required.

No matter which way you look at the numbers the WRC is a black hole for cash, if the same cash was focused on Limerick and Galway commuter it would look very very different

Should also bare in mind cost is not the key indicator its the outcome, its fairly cheap do something outside Dublin since the current infrasturcture is more or less idle, Dublin its beyond it s limit which then requires expensive solutions to sort out

MLM

I cannot see the point in comparing the WRC with either the LUAS or the Cork Suburban System. The LUAS and Cork Suburban, are mass transit systems, predominately for urban commuters. The WRC is inter-city which will facillitate a completely different type of journey. A more understandable comparison would be to compare projected WRC figures to passenger numbers on, lets say; Dublin to Sligo, Tralee, Rosslare, or Galway. As far as I know the only viable Inter-city service in the country is Dublin to Cork. All other Inter-city services are run for purely social and economic reasons. If this the case then the argument that WRC is a waste of money, has no value in this present context. I haven't been able to find Inter-city passenger or profitability numbers online for a comparison. Perhaps someone else might have them?

corktina

inter city...from one smallish city to one even smaller...via three tiny towns and with a reversal thrown in for good measure....not exactly the TGV is it.....

Our man in Havana

I saw some work going on at Craughwell LC on Thursday last. Track looks in good condition. Is it driveable by train at the moment?

MLM

corktina wrote:

inter city...from one smallish city to one even smaller...via three tiny towns and with a reversal thrown in for good measure....not exactly the TGV is it.....

If you wanted to be really cynical, you could apply this statement to the entire island!

Schuhart

MarkoP11 wrote:

Should also bare in mind cost is not the key indicator its the outcome, its fairly cheap do something outside Dublin since the current infrasturcture is more or less idle, Dublin its beyond it s limit which then requires expensive solutions to sort out

I’ve no problem with your essential point, but I’d quibble over the use of the words ‘cheap’ and ‘expensive’. I think the contrast is between large amounts of money and small amounts of money. At €75 million, Ennis – Athenry involves less money than Luas, but that €75 million buys so little in terms of bums on seats that its quite an expensive way of moving people around. Similarly, investments in Dublin might require a lot of money. But if Luas is in the unusual position of being a public transport system that meets its own running costs, it illustrates that per punter you end up with something quite cheap.

That said, I’m not suggesting that just because a project is in the GDA it must be a good thing. For the sake of argument, if the feasibility study for Navan is saying its only viable at present as far as Dunboyne, then all we should do is as far as Dunboyne.

MLM wrote:

All other Inter-city services are run for purely social and economic reasons. If this the case then the argument that WRC is a waste of money, has no value in this present context.

I think we have to be clear. Because a certain level of subsidy is applied in some situations doesn’t mean any level of subsidy, no matter how high, is justified once we wave a wand and say vaguely ‘social benefit’.

The point about the WRC is that, as it will attract few passengers, the social benefits just aren’t there. That argument directly refutes any suggestion that the service be provided for social reasons.

That said, I would be interested to see where exactly the existing subsidies go. All we have is a general indication from the material printed in the Clare People

The Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Julie O’Neill, in a memo to Transport Minister Martin Cullen said that Iarnród Éireann’s business case gave rise to a number of concerns; the very poor results of the cost benefit analysis and the ongoing operating deficit which would be higher than the average subvention per passenger paid to Irish Rail in 2005.

This confirms the WRC would be more expensive to run than other rail services, but does not tell us by how much.

Navan Junction

Schuhart wrote:

if the feasibility study for Navan is saying its only viable at present as far as Dunboyne, then all we should do is as far as Dunboyne.

Just to clarify that the feasability study only considered the section as far as Dunboyne - we haven't yet got a similar type of feasability study to look at for Navan, though the routing consideration is designed to address any tweaking that could occur to maximise passenger numbers.

The main indicator Navan can draw on is the certainty that commuter volumes will continue to grow under current plans to develope the town and county

Movement and planning from the county council side has left much to desire in this respect in the past and a more focused type of development in the county would have helped.

However, the thing is that even if a study for Navan leaned towards negative conculsion on the basis of current development along the route, at least there is scope to correct by cleverer land use along the allignment

In a nutshell, the only threat to the lines feasability is Meath County Council's attitude to facilitating it.

And at the end of the day, Meath will be raising half on the cost of the line from within the county in the form of development levies so its really up to MCC to do it right from here on in

westtip

i think if this thread was laid from end to end it might actually be longer than the proposed western rail corridor - does this have any meaning? Probably not but at this time of night with a few scoops inside me it struck me as important - certainly more important than any arguments in favour of the WRC.

Victor

westtip wrote:

i think if this thread was laid from end to end it might actually be longer than the proposed western rail corridor - does this have any meaning? Probably not but at this time of night with a few scoops inside me it struck me as important - certainly more important than any arguments in favour of the WRC.

Kingspan produce 15m2 of paper for every m2 of cladding htey produce. :eek: