Wasteful Dublin Transport Spending (Tram Project cost €96m a mile)

Sponge Bob

Compare and contrast these jobs to see what utterly crap value for money trams in Dublin are:(

In all three cases there were no significant land acquisition costs.

1. The Western Rail Corridor South

Length 35miles
Land Acquisition Costs €3m
Total Cost c.€110-112m
Cost per Mile €3.1-3.4m including a couple of old railcars.

2. Luas extension to the Point.

Length 1 Mile
Land Acquisition Costs €0m
Total Cost €90m
Cost per Mile = €90m

3. Cork Midleton

Length 9 Miles
Land Acquisition Costs €3m
Total Cost €75m
Cost per Mile = €8m ( includes some bridges and park and rides)

dowlingm

MUST ... NOT ... FEED ... TROLL ...

Cool Mo D

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Compare and contrast these jobs to see what utterly crap value for money trams in Dublin are:(

In all three cases there were no significant land acquisition costs.

1. The Western Rail Corridor South

Length 35miles
Land Acquisition Costs €3m
Total Cost c.€110-112m
Cost per Mile €3.1-3.4m including a couple of old railcars.

2. Luas extension to the Point.

Length 1 Mile
Land Acquisition Costs €0m
Total Cost €90m
Cost per Mile = €90m

3. Cork Midleton

Length 9 Miles
Land Acquisition Costs €3m
Total Cost €75m
Cost per Mile = €8m ( includes some bridges and park and rides)

But both the Cork and Western Rail corridors were already built! They were being REopened, and no new permanent way was required. I don't see how you can say the cost of the Luas was excessive in those cases.

DWCommuter

LIKE WITH LIKE Spongey baby.

Sponge Bob

Actually I am wrong. Did I say €90m a MILE ???

It is actually 1.5km which is 0.93 miles . The cost was therefore

€96m a Mile, FFS

and it is not even a railway like the other two , it is a bloody tram with a couple of rails bedded in concrete on a street.
Permanent way my arse

Nor am I certain that the cost of demolishing that ramp at Connolly is included in the €90m figure which palaver could have put it over the €100m...all for 0.93 miles of track.

Maybe now ye know why I have my beady eye on the Interconnector

Cookie_Monster

what'll the usage or return be though. The Luas probably has 1000 times the daily usage either of those other two do.

StephenM_smc

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what'll the usage or return be though. The Luas probably has 1000 times the daily usage either of those other two do.

Likewise the LUAS has more of a chance of making a return on its investment over time.

corktina

a rural line..an urban line and a commuter line....


I dont see much point in a comparison

crocro

One of these projects had a positive cost/benefit ratio in its business case. The other two were election sweeteners.

Sponge Bob

In Madrid they built Metrosur at the same time we built the original Luases.

Metrosur is mostly or all underground and is 40km long , it cost €1.55bn

40km is 25 miles. So that was €62m a Mile for full underground.

Metrosur also comes with things called stations...like the one below. 26 of them ( maybe not all this size but some are) unlike the Luas Extension which has street level bumps ...extended bus shelters in effect.

In a nutshell.

The Spanish can build full underground railways with ****ing underground enormous stations for 2/3 the cost per mile of a tram in Dublin with NO stations



More enormous stations here

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/mad/linea12.htm

noelfirl

***yawn***

Excess negativity really bugs me.

Sponge Bob

€96m a MILE for a tramway bugs me ....lots.

DWCommuter

Sponge Bob wrote: »

€96m a MILE for a tramway bugs me ....lots.

And 350,000 for a semi D in longford bugged me. But its all history now. Those kind of prices are well gone. Unfortunately we are so broke as a nation after all the excess and greed that we cannot even afford the inevitable lower construction costs.

Sponge Bob

Ehhhh but the shower who spent €96m a mile on a tramway are trying to build an underground next

Double or quits ??

HonalD

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ehhhh but the shower who spent €96m a mile on a tramway are trying to build an underground next

Double or quits ??

Now that is a good point.....I cannot agree that the LUAS extension was a bad idea at the time.....but now, can we really really afford a Metro? To anyway? And I said a number of years ago when told yes - Now I think we all know who is really going to pay for it - yes you got it me and you! The mugs, I mean the public!

markpb

HonalD wrote: »

Now that is a good point.....I cannot agree that the LUAS extension was a bad idea at the time.....but now, can we really really afford a Metro? To anyway? And I said a number of years ago when told yes - Now I think we all know who is really going to pay for it - yes you got it me and you! The mugs, I mean the public!

I'll gladly pay for a Metro!

loyatemu

I have to agree with Bob here (to an extent) - I think the Docklands Luas is a good idea, but the cost, and length of time (not to mention disruption) involved are outrageous. I've said this before here, but it bears repeating - it is only a mile long!

I.S.T.

I don't know why they needed a tram system anyway, they could have saved a fortune by building a dedicated bus lane along the current luas route. Vanity reasons I suppose, some nice pretty pictures of the Luas in their propaganda leaflets for the next election looks a lot better than buses.

astrofool

The metro and dart interconnector will pay for themselves, raising finance for them will be relatively easy and painless given the expected return.

The Luas extension will also likely pay for itself over the coming years.

Can the same be said about trains out west? Will the usage level ever be viable for a non government entity take over and run as a business?

I really think we missed a beat in not building some high speed lines over to the west, CIE have a lot to answer for.

markpb

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Compare and contrast these jobs to see what utterly crap value for money trams in Dublin are:(

Not alone are you comparing re-opening a line with the construction of a new line but you're comparing the construction cost alone which is a little pointless. That's why we do cost benefit analysis.

I don't have the figures here but I probably wouldn't be wrong if I said that the red line extension will require no operating subvention and probably carry more people each year than WRC.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I don't know why they needed a tram system anyway, they could have saved a fortune by building a dedicated bus lane along the current luas route. Vanity reasons I suppose, some nice pretty pictures of the Luas in their propaganda leaflets for the next election looks a lot better than buses.

There's more than enough proof to show that people are more likely to switch from car to train than car to bus, no matter how well-run the bus service is. That's why cities build tram lines even though they cost so much. It might sound like pandering to peoples tastes but if public transport is going to be successful in Dublin, building a good tram and train network is the way forward.

Besides which, there are already bus lanes in Dublin (and a bus route along the current red line extension) but anyone who uses them can tell you that people drive in them or park in them, they are closed whenever there are roadworks or they are congested because of poorly designed junctions. One of the advantages of tram lines in the city is that drivers are less ignorant and selfish on tram lines than bus lanes (although that doesn't stop me being delayed almost every evening because of some twat blocking the bottom of the Harcourt/Charlemont ramp).

Calina

Whether things will pay for themselves are not does not negate the need to ensure that the money being spent on them is effectively spent.

IE, if something costs 30,000 do we really need to spend 90,000 on it, that sort of thing. So if the Luas could have been built for less than 96million euro a mile, then prudent planning suggests that we should see about ensuring that it doesn't cost 96million euro a mile in the future, that sort of thing...this, I suspect, is what Sponge Bob is aiming at.

I.S.T.

markpb wrote: »

There's more than enough proof to show that people are more likely to switch from car to train than car to bus, no matter how well-run the bus service is. That's why cities build tram lines even though they cost so much. It might sound like pandering to peoples tastes but if public transport is going to be successful in Dublin, building a good tram and train network is the way forward.

Besides which, there are already bus lanes in Dublin (and a bus route along the current red line extension) but anyone who uses them can tell you that people drive in them or park in them, they are closed whenever there are roadworks or they are congested because of poorly designed junctions. One of the advantages of tram lines in the city is that drivers are less ignorant and selfish on tram lines than bus lanes (although that doesn't stop me being delayed almost every evening because of some twat blocking the bottom of the Harcourt/Charlemont ramp).

I am not talking about painting a bus lane on the road and sharing space with other traffic (as with Stillorgan bus lane). I am talking about using the same route as the Luas but with a roadway with buses on it. You can easily stop cars from using the busway, make it inaccessable for them. You can have cameras watching the lane with a high fine for any car that drives in it.

KevR

M50 is another example of wasteful transport spending.

How much less would it have cost overall if they built it properly the first time around (with the extra lanes and free-flow junctions)? The upgrade is costing €1 Billion and that's with no extra land acquisition costs. Not to mention it will now permanently have a 100kmh speed limit instead of 120kmh. Also, the disruption during the upgrade is really annoying.

And then there's the whole issue of letting a private company have the toll plaza and then buying it back off them.

dowlingm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

it is not even a railway like the other two , it is a bloody tram with a couple of rails bedded in concrete on a street.

did you miss the twangy things overhead, and the transformers required to produce 750VDC? You won't find that in Ardrahan.

As pointed out by others, these numbers are useless without taking passengers into account. How long will it take the Ennis-Athenry section to have net boardings equal to the number of people shifted from a single Lily Allen concert?

dowlingm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ehhhh but the shower who spent €96m a mile on a tramway are trying to build an underground next

News to me that RPA are building interconnector

Sponge Bob

dowlingm wrote: »

As pointed out by others, these numbers are useless without taking passengers into account. How long will it take the Ennis-Athenry section to have net boardings equal to the number of people shifted from a single Lily Allen concert?

I really don't care. €96m a mile for a bloody tram is simply outrageous.

The only comparable cost I can find is the Rennes Metro which was built a few years ago , is 5.8 miles long and cost €530m

This French extravagance therefore cost €91m a Mile which compares favourably to the Luas extension until you realise that the French put most of it underground and built 13 undergrounds stations too with the rest of it elevated. No street sections at all.

€96m for something with no stations...in effect.....is absolutely outrageous. The French system is on an appropriate scale for somewher e the size of Dublin by and large.



And yes, Norman Foster designed the overground bits

Sponge Bob

dowlingm wrote: »

News to me that RPA are building interconnector

Metro North is all overground is it ??

dowlingm

Fair enough, I misread there on the metro/interconnector.

The numbers on the French example are interesting but as has been pointed out previously this extension was a special case with the Connolly ramp fiasco and the utilities issues, not to mention the bridge which probably didn't come cheap. Bring in figures from other LRTs by all means but don't compare it to a non-electric regional rail line.

SeanW

And the point that's been made by dowlingm and others is that your comparison only makes "sense" because you excluded A) the fact that the Midleton and WRC were reopenings of existing railways with preserved rights of way, and
The WRC will probably not carry that many passengers while both Midleton and the Luas extension will carry enough passengers that it will make a net return from a socio-economic viewpoint, and possibly a profit in the case of Midleton.

If you look at it from your perspective, we should build railways out the back of Mayo, Dingle, New Ross and god knows where else as guided by an issue of Johnsons Railway Gazette from the 1800s, and forget about building Metros and the Interconnector in Dublin or new Luas lines anywhere, because they "cost too much."

The only use your post serves is to suggest that we should look to bring the construction costs of urban projects down to something resembling European norms.

Metrobest

Sponge Bob wrote: »

In Madrid they built Metrosur at the same time we built the original Luases.

Metrosur is mostly or all underground and is 40km long , it cost €1.55bn

40km is 25 miles. So that was €62m a Mile for full underground.

Metrosur also comes with things called stations...like the one below. 26 of them ( maybe not all this size but some are) unlike the Luas Extension which has street level bumps ...extended bus shelters in effect.

In a nutshell.

The Spanish can build full underground railways with ****ing underground enormous stations for 2/3 the cost per mile of a tram in Dublin with NO stations.

More enormous stations here

I'm not sure MetroSur is 40km, but it's a completely spurious comparison. MetroSur is not in central Madrid - it's way out in the southern suburbs (so cheaper to build) and it's a circular line (so no need for two termini). Labor costs in Spain are probably 50% lower than Ireland's if not more - and labor is a huge part of any capital project. MetroSur would be more comparable with our MetroWest - if that ever gets built!

The planning system in Spain is completely different - projects don't have lengthy expensive oral hearings like in Dublin. The politicians just decide to greenlight a project and it gets built. It's been like that both before and after General Franco. Incidentally Madrid has the most kilometers of metro of any city in the world, but only half the average load factor of the Barcelona metro. They build metro to serve the sprawl of a badly-planned edge city? Sound familiar.

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote: »

If you look at it from your perspective, we should build railways out the back of Mayo, Dingle, New Ross and god knows where else as guided by an issue of Johnsons Railway Gazette from the 1800s, and forget about building Metros and the Interconnector in Dublin or new Luas lines anywhere, because they "cost too much."

Where did I ever advocate that?? LINKS or STFU time SeanW

It is not me fault that the Dubs..the RPA is a Dublin quango only..... are incapable of managing the procurement of infrastructure in a cost efficient manner. I never even mentioned the Beckett Bridge at €60m although the actual bridge cost less than half that including delivery from Holland

The 35 mile long Athenry - Ennis restoration cost only slightly more than sub one mile of Dublin tramway did.

The Kildare four track project cost €50m a mile with land acquisition costs, new track bed , lot of big bridges and 4 or 5 hefty stations included.

You may note that I did not compare the mickey mouse tram project with that other project as it does not compare despite costing nearly TWICE as much.

jahalpin

KevR wrote: »

M50 is another example of wasteful transport spending.

How much less would it have cost overall if they built it properly the first time around (with the extra lanes and free-flow junctions)? The upgrade is costing €1 Billion and that's with no extra land acquisition costs. Not to mention it will now permanently have a 100kmh speed limit instead of 120kmh. Also, the disruption during the upgrade is really annoying.

And then there's the whole issue of letting a private company have the toll plaza and then buying it back off them.

When the M50 was designed and built, the country couldn't afford to build a bigger road. It's only in the last few years that we had the money to spend on bigger roads etc

National Toll Roads paid for the Westlink bridge to be built and got their investment back from the tolls that were collected from the users of the bridge. They also built the second bridge due to the success of the first one.

jahalpin

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where did I ever advocate that?? LINKS or STFU time SeanW

It is not me fault that the Dubs..the RPA is a Dublin quango only..... are incapable of managing the procurement of infrastructure in a cost efficient manner. I never even mentioned the Beckett Bridge at €60m although the actual bridge cost less than half that including delivery from Holland

The 35 mile long Athenry - Ennis restoration cost only slightly more than sub one mile of Dublin tramway did.

The Kildare four track project cost €50m a mile with land acquisition costs, new track bed , lot of big bridges and 4 or 5 hefty stations included.

You may note that I did not compare the mickey mouse tram project with that other project as it does not compare despite costing nearly TWICE as much.

You can't really compare the cost of developing a large, high-density commuter light-rail system in the only MAJOR city in the country to a second-rate Victorian rail-line (Ennis - Athenry) which will never even break even.

The exceptionally low population densities outside of Dublin make rail very un-economical to build and maintain.

You also seem to have an unhealthly fasination with building large stations. The Luas is a light-rail system, light-rail systems use smaller "bus-stop" type stations while travelling through the centres of cities. Most of the stops outside of the main area (Connolly - Heuston) have heavy-rail type stations. Also as the green-line follows the route of an old heavy-rail alignment, most of its stops are proper stations as well.

Art(h)ur

jahalpin wrote: »

The Luas is a light-rail system, light-rail systems use smaller "bus-stop" type stations while travelling through the centres of cities.

And that's exactly the point - small stops were put up at a cost of heavy-rail stations. You pay for big and get small - where's the value?
As was said before - regardless of zillions of passengers using this line in future, the cost was over-blown by a mile (the very same mile that the line covers) or more.

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

€96m for something with no stations...in effect.....is absolutely outrageous.

Erm... there are four stops on the extension. Unless the RPA are flinging passengers out of moving Luas trams. And the stops would be pretty typical of French tram stops too.

Sponge Bob

Hungerford wrote: »

Erm... there are four stops on the
extension. Unless the RPA are flinging passengers out of moving Luas trams. And the stops would be pretty typical of French tram stops too.

You did not read the links Hungerford

The Rennes system is more like the DLR in London for example whereas the Luas stops are basically elongated BUS stop and not a STREET tram like the Luas in Docklands.

In fact the Rennes system is closer to the proposed Metro North than to a Luas.

Let me reiterate, one is a mickey mouse TRAMWAY costing €96m a mile while the other is an UNDERGROUND or else an ELEVATED Light Rail solution that cost less per Mile to build than the mickey mouse tramway did.


Compare and contrast

1. Luas Stops



2. Rennes Metro Underground Station Gallery Here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rennes_Metro

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H12JEtUYEk

NedNew

Could we compare in cost per kilometre not per mile since we don't use miles any more and any international comparison (generally) is always in kilometres.

Saying it costs €96 million per mile is almost meaningless - better would be €60 million per kilometre.

noelfirl

I can't really see the point here at all. With regards to your first post comparing WRC to Luas to Midleton line, people have already pointed out the different cost to benefits in terms of what each delivers.

You've pointed to the spectacular Metrosur... people have already pointed out the different nature of costs in Spain, in terms of acquisition, labour and construction. To just point to a big underground station (or equivalent) and say "they did this cheaper, why cant we do the same" seems to be to be a very basic and dare I say it tabloidesque type argument that doesn't really address any of the differentials between the Spanish and Irish projects.

€90m does indeed seem at first glance extravagant, but I'm not an civil or transport engineer, so I don't feel like I'm in any position to really say whether or not it's too expensive, which I'd imagine is the same position most people on this forum are in.

Furthermore, I don't imagine that when the Citywest Luas bill comes in in a couple of years time it will suddenly have dipped down due to a few people getting heated over the cost of the Docklands extension. It's not like I imagine all the engineers, contractors et al. are suddenly going to realise one day, "jaysus lads, look at these Spanish plans, if we do this this and this like they did we'll cut the cost in half!!"

Whether thats down to corruption, poor planning, more expensive land acquisition or miscellaneous, I don't know, but what does get me is after anything transport related is completed in this country, we as usual go in to this self-depreciating spiral of "God, what a waste of money". I don't think that the Docklands extension is something spectacular, and indeed it is abhorrent to see politicians bandwagon jumping about the progressive "can-do" attitude, but I do think it will have value over time as a part of a larger transport strategy, and the cost will ultimately be recouped, be it 10 or 20 years down the line.

donvito99

I'm just happy to have the Luas TBH.

MERRY CHRISTMAS !

SeanW

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where did I ever advocate that?? LINKS or STFU time SeanW

Your first post seemed to suggest that the Ennis Athenry line was great value for money because 35 miles of it

Sponge Bob wrote:

cost only slightly more than sub one mile of Dublin tramway did.

If I read that wrong (and I amy have as you qualified your stance in later posts) I apologise, but you must accept responsibility for a vague OP that gave rise to such misapprehensions.

The Kildare four track project cost €50m a mile with land acquisition costs, new track bed , lot of big bridges and 4 or 5 hefty stations included.

You may note that I did not compare the mickey mouse tram project with that other project as it does not compare despite costing nearly TWICE as much.

Well why not? It is of course partly irrelevant (heavy rail vs light rail), but the business case has from the start been comparable, i.e. it's being built because people will use it. Lots of people. Unlike just about any portion of the WRC.

dowlingm

Didn't the Connolly ramp account of 30million out of the 90?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=134109
It was a very bad mistake but it's a pretty exceptional item.

According to this European Investment Bank press release, the Rennes Metro has a capacity of 5,000ppdph. Bear in mind the date and then index for inflation since then.

Metro North initial capacity (PDF) will be 10k ppdph initial capacity, ultimate capacity 20k ppdph over 30 year horizon.

Peak capacity on LUAS Red is 8266ppdph based on 4.5min frequency (13.33 tpdph) and capacity of 310 persons - but this only applies between Busaras and Heuston. Between Point and Tallaght @ 6.5min the capacity is 5723ppdph.

Might I remind people that we do not know for sure that the Ennis-Athenry rail extension will not pay its way? Also, as a regular LUAS user, I am happy with the cost, as the return was worth the investment.

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote: »

Your first post seemed to suggest that the Ennis Athenry line was great value for money because 35 miles of itIf I read that wrong (and I amy have as you qualified your stance in later posts) I apologise, but you must accept responsibility for a vague OP that gave rise to such misapprehensions.

Ah that was not the problem at all. This blatant lie of yours was the problem. I selectively bolded it in quoting you back to you.

If you look at it from your perspective, we should build railways out the back of Mayo, Dingle, New Ross and god knows where else as guided by an issue of Johnsons Railway Gazette from the 1800s, and forget about building Metros and the Interconnector in Dublin or new Luas lines anywhere, because they "cost too much."

I want you to unreservedly withdraw this. It is a blatant lie, no more and no less.

howiya

Perhaps you should move to Madrid or Rennes Spongebob...

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Rennes system is more like the DLR in London for example whereas the Luas stops are basically elongated BUS stop and not a STREET tram like the Luas in Docklands.

In that case, the comparison isn't valid because they are different technologies.

I also suspect that the Rennes system probably had its choice of alignments whereas the Luas one was badly limited because you can't demolish the IFSC.

Calina

howiya wrote: »

Perhaps you should move to Madrid or Rennes Spongebob...

uhem, I consider posts of this nature to be unconstructive. Most people with an interest in this country look at best practice elsewhere and see how it can applied here to the benefit of people in this country rather than shipping off to other places because we'll never do anything properly here.

Sponge Bob

Hungerford wrote: »

In that case, the comparison isn't valid because they are different technologies.

The comparison is entirely fair BECAUSE they are different technologies.

The Rennes system is constrained by platform length and doubling the platform length form the current 26m and doubling the number of train sets and pairing them will take its capacity to 10000 pphpd....where MN will start.

The DLR has longer platforms, that is mainly it. There is no other significant difference between most DLR stations and the Rennes system apart from maybe the large Canary Wharf station and average platform lengths and platform lengths at busy stations.

They have allowed for this in Rennes , they ONLY need to build platforms and buy trains to double the capacity. The rest of the system needs no upgrade whatsoever.

The Luas is a 5000 pphpd and that is that. It cannot really be upgraded to exceed that .

Metrosur platforms are 5 times longer or something .

The fact is that the vastly superior UNDERGOUND systems in Rennes and south Madrid cost less per km / per mile than the low capacity street tram with virtually no station construction in the Dublin Docklands.

€96m a mile ( or €60m a km) is an OUTRAGEOUS amount to spend on a mickey mouse street tram.

Chorcai

€96m a mile ( or €60m a km) is an OUTRAGEOUS amount to spend on a mickey mouse street tram.

It's quite disturbing that it cost that amount, did anyone not notice (or want to!) that it was going to cost that much per mile/km !

Rip off Ireland, the goverment said they can't afford to do XYZ but yet they could fork out 96m PER mile back in the those days.

What should it have cost ? How long before its payed off ?

Sponge Bob

should have cost €20m-€30m for a quality job if no rolling stock was bought, if rolling stock was required then add that to the €20m-€30m

The interest payments alone on that section will be €5m a year, it might be paid off in 100 years ...all going well

Well, I wouldn't call it a mickey mouse tram, i relied on it to get to IT Tallaght for 2 years (however the debacle that was the Mad-sorry-Red Cow construction site-thank God they've finished-was a damned disgrace). Similar was said about DART once.

Just thought of a saying i've heard from a firefighter. "better to be looking at it than looking for it"