Iarnrod Eireann plans DART extension to Inchicore

Calina

I'm open to correction on that but my understanding also was that the interconnector was to be publically funded and not subject to some private finance initiative. If that has changed I worry for the continued health of the next FF canvasser who comes my way.

_________________________

Am adding, incidentally, that I notice some attitude problems developing in this thread. Take this is a friendly warning that I am watching the atmosphere here with some care.

DWCommuter

I knew that MN was a PPP as it made sense that a build and operate offer could be put on the table. It was a blank canvass and potential to earn money. But the IC as a PPP doesn't make much sense.

I can't really see an investor building a tunnel and then charging rent on it for 30 years to a state transport provider. I can't really see that state transport provider being able to afford it either. Then there's the fact that it would be the only piece of the IE network privately owned. Perhaps "I hate wallies" can explain this and why I live in the past. (based on my previous post) I think anyone of a certain age group will appreciate how poor a FF lead Government has been in relation to promises and commitment to rail projects. (not that opposition parties are any better.)

As for PPP's, lets get real anyway. The state of international finance markets at the moment doesn't really lend itself to the roll out of this Celtic Tiger fanaticism.

L1011

DWCommuter wrote: »

Then there's the fact that it would be the only piece of the IE network privately owned.

Isn't some of the Rosslare line theoretically owned in trust with Stena Line?

dermo88

The section between Rosslare Strand and Waterford and also between Rosslare Strand and Rosslare Harbour was owned by Fishguard and Rosslare Port and Harbour authority as far as I recall, but I believe the company has since been wound up.

As for Public Private Partnership, I can only see this deal going to Fianna Fail cronies who will continue to bleed us dry until they are publicly disgraced and lynched.

This recession may be painful now, but rest assured that it is the best thing to happen to Irish society if it is dealt with quickly.

Stupido

the interconnector is not a PPP because services will be operated by IE and not a private operator.

MN (and luas for that matter) are single systems that will be operated by seperate operators, allowing them to get the money from ticket sales to pay for the up front investment at the building stage.

This can't be done with the Interconnector

krugerrand

As far as I know the Interconnector will be funded by way of a PPP.

Just by way of illustration, there was a presentation by IE to Dublin City Council on the 7th July, 2008.
http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/Documents/Taking_the_Dart_underground.pdf
Therein, it's stated that Phase 3 of the Interconnector project, which I presume is now under way, includes, inter alia, the PPP procurement process (financial, legal) and finalisation of the PPP contract.

As an aside, the above presentation is interesting also in the manner in which it differs from the recently announced final plan which is to start the tunnel in Inchicore and provide a station in Inchicore. I agree with the previous posters that this is a very sensible approach so as to minimise the disruption that starting the tunneling at heuston or under the guinness lands would cause.

The National Development Finance Agency states:
"The National Development Finance Agency ("NDFA") is the statutory financial and insurance adviser for the DART Underground Interconnector project which is to be procured by means of a Public Private Partnership by Córas Iompair Éireann ("CIÉ")."
"A Contract Notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) on 16 December 2008."
"The closing date was the 4th February, 2009." "Tenders have been received and the NFDA expects to award the contract shortly."
http://www.ndfa.ie/TenderCompetitions/Dart_Underground_Interconn/insuranceAdviser.htm

DWCommuter

Thanks for that info K. First Ive heard of it. Therefore it means that CIE will pay an annual rent to the "owner" of the tunnel. Or perhaps passengers will have to pass through coin operated toll booths. Sure maybe we can combine the road toll tags with DART tags.:D

Overall my first impressions of this being PPP, if it still is, are cautious. Another little known fact was that when the Transport act was ammended to form the RPA, it permitted them to build the interconnector and the line to Navan. It was subsequently changed. But it is indicative of a Government that hasn't really got a clue what its doing.

So how do people feel about the IC being a ppp project? Personally I don't think it increases the chances of it being built as we still have to fund the other aspects from exchequer funds. Furthermore annual payments to the "owner" will be huge and over a long period of time.

BluntGuy

DWCommuter wrote: »

So how do people feel about the IC being a ppp project? Personally I don't think it increases the chances of it being built as we still have to fund the other aspects from exchequer funds. Furthermore annual payments to the "owner" will be huge and over a long period of time.

Well PPP is the ONLY chance of it going ahead in the short-term, otherwise we'll just have to wait until we've sorted out the mess we've made of our economy - which will take years.

This project is funded by the Irish Government under the Transport 21 investment programme; it is also being part-funded by the Ten-T Executive Agency of the European Commission. Elements of this project will be undertaken as a Public Private Partnership (PPP), Iarnród Éireann and the Department of Transport are currently examining a number of options for PPP.

That's what IE say, but it still doesn't make it any clearer.

I guess we'll have to wait until December for answers.

L1011

DWCommuter wrote: »

Sure maybe we can combine the road toll tags with DART tags.:D

The Dartford Crossing owners might have something to say on that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dart-tag.png

ihatewallies

Nothing illustrates more graphically the relentless unmitigated codswallop spouted here then the simple fact that after a million posts of waffle on the IC nobody was aware that the main part of the project will be a PPP.



Nothing else needs to be said.

DWCommuter

ihatewallies wrote: »

Nothing illustrates more graphically the relentless unmitigated codswallop spouted here then the simple fact that after a million posts of waffle on the IC nobody was aware that the main part of the project will be a PPP.



Nothing else needs to be said.

Actually a few things need to be said.

1. Put up one piece of media coverage that said the project was PPP.

2. I attended the information days and there was absolutely no mention of PPP, unlike similar Metro North info days.

3. Whether its PPP or not makes absolutely no difference to anything Ive said here or many others for that matter.

4. Enjoy the glory of being apparently correct on this ocassion and I hope you are just as quick if you are wrong about anything in the future. But I doubt it.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

The Dartford Crossing owners might have something to say on that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dart-tag.png

I knew I was onto a winner with that idea. But I neglected to say that we should have two tags. Northside - DIRT. Southside - DORT. This should leave the way clear with the Dartford Crossing lads. Or maybe the Dartford crew have already submitted a tender. A money saving route.:D

DWCommuter

This PPP aspect to the IC looks like a recent idea. Online there appears to be potentially conflicting information. Links above suggest its gone to tender, while IE's info suggests that they are still looking at the PPP options with the DOT.

Calina

ihatewallies wrote: »

Nothing illustrates more graphically the relentless unmitigated codswallop spouted here then the simple fact that after a million posts of waffle on the IC nobody was aware that the main part of the project will be a PPP.



Nothing else needs to be said.

One more post like this and you will be taking a holiday from this forum. It's one thing to know a bit more than a lot of people about something but it's another thing entirely to be insulting about it.

ihatewallies

Calina wrote: »

One more post like this and you will be taking a holiday from this forum. It's one thing to know a bit more than a lot of people about something but it's another thing entirely to be insulting about it.

your whole forum is an insult to common sense.

Calina

ihatewallies is on holidays from C&T for seven days.

__________________

kona

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

Nostradamus

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

Makes a lot of sense as Fairview looks packed and there are going to need plenty of sidings and I can't think of anywhere on the maynooth like other than Liffy Jct were they would find the space. Be pretty ironic if they electrified the PPT for this reason.

dazberry

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

There was talk floating around here about the works being sold off and redeveloped (like the OPW site etc), thankfully all the madness ended before they got the chance (if it was indeed true)...

D.

strassenwolf

So, if it is indeed to be a PPP, one wonders why the current route via St. Stephen's Green, and the two-platform arrangement at Spencer Dock, were the selected options.

The "looping route" via St. Stephen's Green should make construction of the tunnel more expensive than a straightforward cross-city route, via the city centre.

The cost will inevitably be a factor for a potential private partner.

The proposed layout at Spencer Dock - with just two platforms - would seem to rule out Irish Rail's proposed 20 trains per hour. The frequency in the tunnel still seems to be very much constrained by the achievable frequencies along the northern line.

Should it be the case that the interconnector is to be developed under a PPP scheme, two factors seem to stand out:

the frequencies which IE can realistically put through the tunnel, and thus generate revenue with which to pay the developer; and

the extra cost for a developer of building a longer route than appears to be necessary.

silverside

interesting thread so far, thanks.

my naive impression as to why it goes via stephen's green is
1) it needs to go by north centre city, connolly being the obvious place for a stop (integrates with luas / busarus)
2) the tunnel can't turn on a button to go westwards so lets bring it across the river -> integrate with pearse and the business district
3) once your underground from pearse, differences in the exact route dont cost much - so lets integrate with stephen's green (green luas, can build a station opening cheaply) - and throw in a stop at james's gate too, there are already a lot of people living on thomas st / oliver bond area who shouldnt be left out of the whole DART thing.

kingshankly

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

cant see this happening tbh after them spending crazy money on the new sidings in fairview.would be handy save the company from sendimg darts to inchicore for repairs on a weekly basis

Nostradamus

dazberry wrote: »

There was talk floating around here about the works being sold off and redeveloped (like the OPW site etc), thankfully all the madness ended before they got the chance (if it was indeed true)...

D.

I would imagine that whole idea went down with the Celtic Tiger.

There was even talk of building a skyscraper across the yard at Heuston ala Grand Gentral NY, Birmingham New Street etc...but that ain't happening now.

Nostradamus

silverside wrote: »

interesting thread so far, thanks.

my naive impression as to why it goes via stephen's green is
1) it needs to go by north centre city, connolly being the obvious place for a stop (integrates with luas / busarus)

Not really. It integrates with Luas and Busaras via the Point Luas Line and Hueston Red Line and if the Luas BX line is ever built that's an option too.

Connolly I think will be downgraded to just a DART/Suburban station in time and I would not be surprised if the Enterprise/Sligo services terminates at Pearse when the DART Underground is built.

DWCommuter

Okay, mystery solved.

This extract is from a speech by Noel Dempsey at the "building Irelands infrastructure conference" in February 2008.

The rail interconnector is another major flagship Transport 21 project. Once in place (by 2015 at the latest) it will quadruple the numbers of rail users on the network from 25 million per year to 100 million and will fully integrate the rail network in the GDA. In order to expedite the delivery of this vital project I recently asked Irish Rail to engage with the PPP community with a view to building the tunnel section of this project. Given the very positive experiences that the NRA has enjoyed in its partnerships with private construction companies on road building projects I have no doubt that the Interconnector project will similarly benefit from the involvement of the PPP community. I look forward to rapid progress on this project in the near future.

This would suggest that the PPP route was advocated in late 2007. This aspect of the project didn't receive much media coverage and I must admit I missed it completely.

So its official. They are looking to a private venture to actually build the tunnel. Sounds like desperation to me and confirmation that they never really had the supposed "ringfenced" money to begin with. Its the strangest PPP Ive ever heard of.

murphaph

They use shadow tolling on sections of UK trunk roads which are built by PPP. The end user has no idea that they are in fact on a toll road because the toll comes out of general taxation.

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

They use shadow tolling on sections of UK trunk roads which are built by PPP. The end user has no idea that they are in fact on a toll road because the toll comes out of general taxation.

So what are you saying? Its workable? We just pay it from exchequer funds?

murphaph

DWCommuter wrote: »

So what are you saying? Its workable? We just pay it from exchequer funds?

It "works" insofar as the roads get built but I know the UK has been turning away from PPPs in general because ultimately as we all know they are more expensive than just paying for the works directly. It's used over there for the same reason as here; to keep projects off balance sheet. Perhaps the EU as a whole needs to closely examine the 3% of GDP rule given the benefits of large scale infrastructural projects during recessions.

Zebra3

Nostradamus wrote: »

Connolly I think will be downgraded to just a DART/Suburban station in time and I would not be surprised if the Enterprise/Sligo services terminates at Pearse when the DART Underground is built.

Why would they do that and clog up the line even further?

Nostradamus

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why would they do that and clog up the line even further?

There should not be any clogging as the paths will be there most of the day with the city centre resignalling and the interconnector. I am just speculating on what could happen as it is becoming apparent that Connolly will just be another Tara Street and I would just making the point that all kinds of options would open up to the poster who claimed the IC would be useless because it does not serve Connolly.