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

noelfirl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

I'd like you to justify your costings please.

Sponge Bob

A mile of greenfield Motorway costs a lot less than €10m excluding land acquisition costs.

For exampel the Ennis Gort Motorway under construction now cost €92m for 22km as you can see here. The tender was submitted in 2008 ( maybe prepared in 2007).

That is €4.2m a KM and €6.75m a MILE so how does that sort of cost per mile turn into €96m in Dublin for a narrower cross section and again no land acquisition.

Yes services need to be relocated but the per mile trackway cost broadly compares to a wider motorway.

dereko1969

this is a totally pointless thread
first you're comparing light rail in an urban environment with the re-opening of heavy rail lines in rural environment
then you compare to french and spanish underground
and now finally you're comparing it to roads!
apples, oranges, and finally bananas!

Hungerford

Just a couple of points:

It appears that the Rennes Metro wasn't quite the bargain you claim it is - the city is planning on spending €1.2 billion on upgrading the existing infrastructure to accomodate higher capacity. Seems that some corners may have been cut. :eek:

The planned second route will cost €1 billion for around 7.9 miles worth of track - that works out at €126.7 million.

As for Metro Sur, it isn't in Madrid but is a low-capacity system which links five suburban towns and one small village.

Sponge Bob

Toulouse Metro Line B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_Metro

15km for €968m all UNDERGROUND finished 2007. and using light rail not trams I am not sure if the trains were included in that but all stations and tunnels were.

By the way Toulouse Metro Line E will use the same trams as Dublin Luas , all overground, and will be €250m for 11kms of Tramway ...again not sure if this inludes trams but if not then add €66m for a cost of slightly UNDER €30m a km or less than €48m a mile.

Angers tramway using ground pickup in parts is more expensive to build and the trams are more expensive ( but are otherwise the same as Dublin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angers_tramway

Cost €300m civils and €50m for the trams. = €350m for 7.5miles = €47m a mile and a big depot on the outskirts etc.

dowlingm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

A mile of greenfield Motorway costs a lot less than €10m excluding land acquisition costs. For exampel the Ennis Gort Motorway under construction now cost €92m for 22km

Here you go, off on another tangent. How about the cost for 5280ft of runway?

Sponge Bob

Angers is directly comparable as is the Toulouse Line E , they will all run Citadis trams like the Luas. The other projects are a better build quality as well as underground...and still cheaper than the Docklands Luas was

As to your runway , it is to land what , cessnas or jumbos ??

DWCommuter

We know these things can be built cheaper in other countries.

We know why they can be built cheaper in other countries.

We know how inflated our build costs were.

We know why those build costs were so inflated.

Sponge, your entire argument/point is based on issues that the people of this nation have already identified. We paid staggering figures to build ANYTHING in this country during the so called boom times.

A conservatory costing 15 grand in 2006 is now priced at 9,500!

This whole point of yours was mentioned, discussed, debated and concluded years ago in many arenas. It applied to costs from a dinner for two to brussels sprots. You are not wrong, but you havent stumbled upon some new financial anomaly. So please forgive me for finding this thread tiresome. The important thing now is to ensure that given the economic collapse and reduction in wages/costs, that when or rather if anything new is built, that it isn't at a rediculously inflated price.

dermo88

I'll agree on that DW Commuter. Theres another factor, its the psychological value of money. For years, we treated the Euro as if it was 2 for 1 to the old Pound. The current recession is bringing it much closer to parity, in both psychological and real terms also. Thats besides the point, but more or less goes as follows:

When I questioned why things cost twice as much in Ireland in 2004, I was told it was because "We are smarter and we are worth it". I was called stingy for saying that the prices are madness. This came from thick people, not family, just some acquaintances.

When I questioned those prices in 2007, I was told, "It is expensive, but we manage"

When I question them in 2012, I will be told, "It was bad before, but at least prices are back to sane levels now. We don't earn as much as before, but our money now goes further"

Now back on topic. I do find the idea that such a small extension costs €96 Million a mile, or €60 Million per kilometer a bit strange. Fair enough, so I have a Double track electrified tramway. Thats 5 Metres tall, 10 Metres wide, and 1000 Metres long. So lets see, I get 50,000 Cubic Metres of developed transport system for € 60 Million. €1200 per cubic Meter.

Am I oversimplifying matters. In my mind, something like this should be readily available and built for €25 Million-€30 Million. Something does not add up, and to be quite honest, I'd like some answers to it. While it is a good project, I do consider that the original two lines of Luas cost €746 Million. I don't call it a wasteful project, but I do call it wasteful spending.

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Angers is directly comparable as is the Toulouse Line E , they will all run Citadis trams like the Luas.

Both systems, however, have a capacity which is a fraction of that of the Luas. The Luas has c.90,000 passengers per day - Line E is only designed to handle 30,000 per day and Angers will handle 35,000 per day.

Sponge Bob

They are the initial expected traffic and not the capacity Hungerford. The capacity is the same.

I would like links to your projections next time please thx , je peaux les liser meme s'ils s'exprimes en Francais ....ca me dérange pas en genérale !!!!!!!!!!

The Red Line ( not the entire Luas but the Red line) with the pissant extension at its end will carry the numbers you attribute to the French systems and will have the capacity to carry 60k skulls a day if every tram is full at all times.

The capacity per hour will be around 4 or 5k.

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They are the initial expected traffic and not the capacity Hungerford. The capacity is the same.

That's a surprise - given that Anger's entire urban population is around 260,000 people.

howiya

Calina wrote: »

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.

No more or less constructive than any other post on the issue. Keyboard warriors will not solve the countries problems.

Spongebob is only making these criticisms now after the line has opened. Surely they would have been better made at the planning stage and through the relevant planning process than on boards

DWCommuter

Its a harmless discussion eventhough we all know the reasons why X cost this and Y cost that.

Run_to_da_hills

Fitting a tram system is more than just burying two rails in the ground, sewage, water mains, gas, underground power lines etc must be sorted out for once and for all. Once the tracks are laid maintenance contractors cannot dig up the lines for underground repairs. This is an added expense that the other two projects do not involve.

Calina

A little joined up thinking in advance however would negate the need for it to be done I suspect. The problem has historically been that we do things piecemeal without looking at a greater picture leading to situations like this.

For example, parts of Swords were built in the last 10 years with scant regard about how best to work public transport in the area. And that didn't even involve anything more complicated than a few buses at the time. The end of Metro North and most of the stations routed in the Swords area are miles from most of the housing estates where people live.

So yeah, I actually think that the cost is linked to limited forward planning and we should endeavour to avoid that sort of messing in the future.

AlekSmart

So yeah, I actually think that the cost is linked to limited forward planning and we should endeavour to avoid that sort of messing in the future.

It`s not as if we,as a culture,don`t know HOW to do it..

Many years ago,decades even,when the area now known as Balinteer was in the throes of construction,the then CIE Dublin City Bus Services extended the 48A directly up to the top of what was then a building site.

However,it resulted in that 48A Bus service being already in place and operational from Day 1 of a new residents arrival.

It was a decision that paid significant dividends,as the 48A was a very successful route with a very high incidence of regular and continuous patronage which continued all the way to the introduction of Luas.

The 48A was one of the very few routes to get this treatment as most other major resedential developments in the Dublin region were devised,planned and constructed with ZERO Public Transport planning in place,until it was too late.

Even today with all the hoo-hah in relation to NDP`s and Transport 21`s et al we resolutely refuse to START with the Public Transport and let the rest develop around it.....simple...but effective !!

DWCommuter

Lack of forward planning is of course a factor. Just look at the shiny new thoroughfares of O'Connell st and Ballymun. If metro north is ever built, they have to be dug up. Both were built when we knew metro was on the cards.

However the actual costs of building anything in this country were grossly inflated during the maverick pussycat years. When we hit rock bottom, we must never again allow contractors to rob us blind to build infrastructure.

DWCommuter

AlekSmart wrote: »

It`s not as if we,as a culture,don`t know HOW to do it..

Many years ago,decades even,when the area now known as Balinteer was in the throes of construction,the then CIE Dublin City Bus Services extended the 48A directly up to the top of what was then a building site.

However,it resulted in that 48A Bus service being already in place and operational from Day 1 of a new residents arrival.

It was a decision that paid significant dividends,as the 48A was a very successful route with a very high incidence of regular and continuous patronage which continued all the way to the introduction of Luas.

The 48A was one of the very few routes to get this treatment as most other major resedential developments in the Dublin region were devised,planned and constructed with ZERO Public Transport planning in place,until it was too late.

Even today with all the hoo-hah in relation to NDP`s and Transport 21`s et al we resolutely refuse to START with the Public Transport and let the rest develop around it.....simple...but effective !!

Similarly when the Clondalkin area was developed in the late 70s early 80s the buses (51) were extended while construction was in full flow.

Maybe its fair to say that when Ireland became a wealthy car dominated culture, we decided to declare public transport a by product of corporate greed.

Calina

DWCommuter wrote: »

Similarly when the Clondalkin area was developed in the late 70s early 80s the buses (51) were extended while construction was in full flow.

Maybe its fair to say that when Ireland became a wealthy car dominated culture, we decided to declare public transport a by product of corporate greed.

I don't think that's really new. I think during the 1960s - were we wealthy and car dominated then - there was a de facto decision to value private transport over public transit systems in the country. I don't know for sure but I think the rationale was to do with it suggesting the country was more economically successful if everyone could buy cars. Mind you we didn't exactly build the roads to cater for the cars either.

D'Peoples Voice

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)

Surely Sponge Bob,
you should have also included the EUR 675 million to construct the existing parts of the REd and Green lines, and whats the cost per kilometre of those projects?
As DWCommuter said earlier, we know everything cost more over the past few years, and sanity is beginning to return
but as I said before, its irrelevant the cost of a project, all that matters is the IRR and the NPV of the project!
Just like Benchmarking, we need to see the figures before we can make judgement.

Sponge Bob

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

Surely Sponge Bob,
you should have also included the EUR 675 million to construct the existing parts of the REd and Green lines, and whats the cost per kilometre of those projects?

Yah , however there are two notable points to make there.

1. Those lines were constructed in the early decade and a significant part of one route was reserved for the system. Not directly comparable in those respects.

2. It ended up costing nearly 3 times as much as was initially projected. The Red and Green lines, at €675m for 16.5km , spent €41m a KM ( €66m a mile) on that network which is comparable to what the French spent later in the mid decade.

In fairness to the RPA they were a 'new' body then who had to acquire an institutional memory and a skill set back then but they still spent well over 2x what they costed the job at in the late 1990s and nearer 3x. The myriad French links above show overspends of sub 100% in cases (I accounted for them fully Hungerford) unlike the RPA which managed a near 200% overspend.

Angers (who knew **** all about trams either) 'only' overspent by 50% unlike the RPA who manage 250% regularly.

Sadly the the RPA ended up learning less than **** all as evidenced by their €96m amile Docklands blowout. That is my main concern.

Dublin does need proper public transport but the sociopathic attitude of the RPA and CIE to the taxpayer is simply intolerable. They are not alone.

There is another gold plated Dublin project. €1.5bn is being spent on the 2 phse M50 widening , €1bn of that is being spent on the current project which is 24km in length ....or €42m a KM = €68m a mile.

That M50 widening project is costing us all 10 times per mile the cost of the M18 project on the Galway Clare border.

Might I point out that the population of the M50 catchment is not 10x the population of the M18 interurban catchment which is around 300,000 on a fair estimate.

But the entire Gort - Crusheen construction will be the same as that for 1 mile of Docklands tram and we will hear no end of whining about it from the Dublin media and banksterocracy the two faced assholes

DWCommuter

Calina wrote: »

I don't think that's really new. I think during the 1960s - were we wealthy and car dominated then - there was a de facto decision to value private transport over public transit systems in the country. I don't know for sure but I think the rationale was to do with it suggesting the country was more economically successful if everyone could buy cars. Mind you we didn't exactly build the roads to cater for the cars either.

The wealth in the 60s delivered jobs for people and better housing. Cars were still the domain of the upper classes. Ironically car ownership did lead to the closure of the harcourt street line. But then it did traverse an affluent area. Buses were still the only mode of vehicular transport for the masses.

I agree with the rationale, but I don't think it really kicked in until the celtic tiger years where a 20 year old in full time emplyment could get access to car finance and away they went.

These days, Im convinced public transport is neglected on the assumption that everybody has access to a car so we have lapsed into a cycle of malaise.

Calina

DWCommuter wrote: »

These days, Im convinced public transport is neglected on the assumption that everybody has access to a car so we have lapsed into a cycle of malaise.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this to be honest. I think it suffered for years of the Progressive Democrats holding the balance of power in government and their ideologically driven demands for competition for Dublin Bus in Dublin, for example.

To some extent, as far as cars are concerned, it's not that everyone has access to one, it's that everyone important has access to one. There's a subtle distinction.

I think public transport is neglected because no politician sees any glory in fixing the problem. Or potentially, no post-political career options. And we have legislation that seems to mitigate against doing practical pro-user stuff. If you look at the arguments that turn up on the bus thread regarding licence applications, you'll get a feel for what I'm driving at.

It's regrettable that when Luas was built, it was not really done as part of an integrated transport policy for Dublin. I don't think car ownership had much to do with that; I think it was "how little can we get away with". That attitude really needs to be stamped out.

SeanW

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There is another gold plated Dublin project. €1.5bn is being spent on the 2 phse M50 widening , €1bn of that is being spent on the current project which is 24km in length ....or €42m a KM = €68m a mile.

That M50 widening project is costing us all 10 times per mile the cost of the M18 project on the Galway Clare border.

Might I point out that the population of the M50 catchment is not 10x the population of the M18 interurban catchment which is around 300,000 on a fair estimate.

But the entire Gort - Crusheen construction will be the same as that for 1 mile of Docklands tram and we will hear no end of whining about it from the Dublin media and banksterocracy the two faced assholes

Not again :mad: look mate, it's going to be difficult to shake the view that you're just promoting projects in the West when you start each point by comparing a project in Dublin to a project in the West and say "look how great the latter is."

You must be aware that most of the professional victims in the West use the "our projects are cheap compared to Dublin ones" tagline to promote their pet projects.

I am not sure you noticed but the M18 is a simple new Motorway with simple, bog standard grade separated junctions with single carriageway roads, with the exception of the M6 junction at Rathmorrissey which is being done on the cheap with a crappy 3 level stack.

The M50 project is a lot more complicated.
First of all, its a live Motorway which means that works have to be carried out with consideration to the massive load of traffic already using it. This makes things a little more complicated.
Second, the engineering involved is massive - you had to squeeze in new lanes to a Motorway that wasn't designed for them (though I could be wrong) AND there are also at least 5 Grade Separated Junction upgrades with other dual carriageways, including a messy quasi-terminal of the old mainline at the M1, and a Luas line realignment at the Red Cow.
Thirdly, the M50 and its junctions are in an urban area so any land acquisitions or CPOs are going to be a lot more expensive.

Metrobest

Calina wrote: »

I'm not sure I totally agree with this to be honest. I think it suffered for years of the Progressive Democrats holding the balance of power in government and their ideologically driven demands for competition for Dublin Bus in Dublin, for example.

To some extent, as far as cars are concerned, it's not that everyone has access to one, it's that everyone important has access to one. There's a subtle distinction.

I think public transport is neglected because no politician sees any glory in fixing the problem. Or potentially, no post-political career options. And we have legislation that seems to mitigate against doing practical pro-user stuff. If you look at the arguments that turn up on the bus thread regarding licence applications, you'll get a feel for what I'm driving at.

It's regrettable that when Luas was built, it was not really done as part of an integrated transport policy for Dublin. I don't think car ownership had much to do with that; I think it was "how little can we get away with". That attitude really needs to be stamped out.

Let's not rewrite history here! The reason the luas wasn't joined is that city centre traders, the media (and ordinary citizens) protested that the project was too disruptive and too expensive. For similar reasons Metro North was not progressed as quickly as it should have been. The PDs were big supporters of mass transit for Dublin but the Irish public decided, instead, to vote en masse for Fianna Fail, the party it loves to hate.

Why do transport projects in Ireland cost more? None of us here are transport economists but it seems likely that the differential is explained by higher costs for labor and materials, a slower planning process and slower lead in teams, and excessive care and compensation for those 'affected' by the project.

I note that the people who are criticising the 96-million-per-mile(!) cost are unable to identify where the cost savings should have been made. So their arguments are baseless.

Calina

You'll notice I specified the PD's position on Dublin Bus as an issue, not on mass transit in general. I also suspect that the PDs would have been looking for private operation of any mass transit systems on ideological grounds. Ideally we'd have a single transport authority for Dublin and not a proliferation of private operators none of whom accept each other's tickets.

I wasn't here when the Luas planning was being done but I do recall that the Green Party were in favour of on street Luas in order to disrupt private transport and "force" people to use the Luas. This is hardly evidence of sensible planning from a political party either.

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote: »

Not again :mad: look mate, it's going to be difficult to shake the view that you're just promoting projects in the West when you start each point by comparing a project in Dublin to a project in the West and say "look how great the latter is."

The liar shows up again as unrepentent as ever. You never withdrew the lies you told about me and I shall simply call you LIAR until you do. I asked you nicely twice. I am not accepting been misrepresented by a liar again!

Like I said before liar, Links or STFU

Calina

Lose the attitude and the sniping or I'll be dishing out holidays.

Guy:Incognito

Chorcai wrote: »

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

What difference does it make? As long as it breaks even at some point in the future it hasnt really cost us anything.

parsi

dowlingm wrote: »

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 at from a single Lily Allen concert?

Fixed your post...

Calina

Stekelly wrote: »

What difference does it make? As long as it breaks even at some point in the future it hasnt really cost us anything.

It would be better for it to break even sooner rather than later.

parsi

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Angers tramway using ground pickup in parts is more expensive to build and the trams are more expensive ( but are otherwise the same as Dublin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angers_tramway

Cost €300m civils and €50m for the trams. = €350m for 7.5miles = €47m a mile and a big depot on the outskirts etc.

It's not opening until 2011 so why compare the actual cost of one project with the budgeted cost of another ?

SeanW

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I asked you nicely twice.

Indeed ...

Sponge Bob wrote: »

STFU time

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It is a blatant lie, no more and no less.

Telling people to Shut The F*** Up and calling them liars, for simply making a geniune misapprehension, is not "nicely" under any definition that I am aware of.

I will happily withdraw everything I've posted on this thread IF you accept the logical insolvency of two particular comparisons that you made and you are now going on the aggressively-defensive about.
1) Your comparison of the Luas Red Line extension (new light rail, double track, urban area, electrficiation, lots of utilities to be moved very carefully around, a ramp demolition that may have been charged off against the project) to the Ennis-Athenry line (straight heavy rail reopening to very low standards)
2) The completely unrelated M50 upgrade and M18 construction. Yes, they're both motorways, but the similarities end there.

Accept that these were bad comparisons, and I will withdraw everything I have posted as an egregious error. Stand over them uber-defensively and keep calling me a liar and I will not, as not only myself but others will wonder why you're being so thin-skinned and defensive.

Sponge Bob

parsi wrote: »

It's not opening until 2011 so why compare the actual cost of one project with the budgeted cost of another ?

That was only one example among many. Toulouse opens presently and both cost a hell of a lot less than the €96 a mile Docklands trainlet for the same capacity.

Yet all the French projects come in for remarkably less and the Spanish one for vastly less given what it does.

Very few sincere apologies for the sheer abject waste from the Dublin posters in this thread.

On simple C/B analysis servicing the interest on the €90m will cost €5m a year and paying it back over 40 years will cost another €2m a year . So it would need to run a surplus of €135k a week to pay its way ....nearly €20k a day.

It will in its metaphorical hole.

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote: »

I will happily withdraw everything I've posted on this thread IF you accept the logical insolvency of two particular comparisons that you made and you are now going on the aggressively-defensive about.

I will address your comparison point when you simply say that there is no evidence whatsoever that I have ever advocated the opening of rural lines like the ones on your list.

dowlingm

Calina wrote: »

I'm not sure I totally agree with this to be honest. I think it suffered for years of the Progressive Democrats holding the balance of power in government and their ideologically driven demands for competition for Dublin Bus in Dublin, for example.

Seriously. If there was a LOLFed type book called "Competition: UR DOIN IT RONG" it could be entirely about the PDs. They wanted competition WITHIN Dublin Airport when the logical approach would be to civilianise Baldonnel, sell it to BAA or some other airport operator and send the fixed wing bits of the Air Corps to a corner of Shannon. It's not like that isn't already an military facility anyway.

They ordered Irish Rail and Bus Eireann to compete with each other without separating them financially and giving IR/IE the licence to run its own buses to expand the catchment of the railway, create radial services, expand capacity on overstretched trackage while the money for expansion was found etc.

They talked about bus competition while entirely failing to create a transparent structure by giving DTO/DTA the needed powers (instead letting DofT sit on applications indefinitely) and created taxi competition by means not so much Reaganist as feckin anarchist.

And as for health competition - private hospitals on public lands, private hospitals not paying public bills, community rating rather than simply closing VHI to new members for five years and paying them to stay out of the market...

Calina

Sponge Bob and SeanW

so that you both pick up on this: sniping at each other doesn't do my perception of the validity of your argument any good.

Please simmer down or step away from the keyboard both of you.

Metrobest

Calina wrote: »

You'll notice I specified the PD's position on Dublin Bus as an issue, not on mass transit in general. I also suspect that the PDs would have been looking for private operation of any mass transit systems on ideological grounds. Ideally we'd have a single transport authority for Dublin and not a proliferation of private operators none of whom accept each other's tickets.

I wasn't here when the Luas planning was being done but I do recall that the Green Party were in favour of on street Luas in order to disrupt private transport and "force" people to use the Luas. This is hardly evidence of sensible planning from a political party either.

Are you arguing that the PDs were wrong to suggest that Dublin Bus deserves some healthy competition? I would argue they were, and still are, dead right.

Nobody is advoacting a market free-for-all but carefully regulated structures where private operators operate tranches of routes does reap dividends. Barcelona and Amsterdam both have several private bus operators who do a fantastic job and are fully integrated into the smartcard ticketing system.

We need to give up the myth that private competion is somehow to be feared.

The examples in Ireland - Luas, Aircoach, Citylink - show that Irish passengers are more than happy to use private operators, and indeed prefer doing so than the alternative semi-state monopoly.

Calina

Metrobest wrote: »

Are you arguing that the PDs were wrong to suggest that Dublin Bus deserves some healthy competition? I would argue they were, and still are, dead right.

Nobody is advoacting a market free-for-all but carefully regulated structures where private operators operate tranches of routes does reap dividends. Barcelona and Amsterdam both have several private bus operators who do a fantastic job and are fully integrated into the smartcard ticketing system.

We need to give up the myth that private competion is somehow to be feared.

The examples in Ireland - Luas, Aircoach, Citylink - show that Irish passengers are more than happy to use private operators, and indeed prefer doing so than the alternative semi-state monopoly.

How a service is provided is not as important as it being provided efficiently. With respect to Aircoach, the only one on which I can comment, it's systematically less punctual than the equivalent Dublin Bus service, hence I use the DB 747 service for the city centre out of preference.

That being said, the issue is that private competition as it exists here does not allow integrated ticketing. Part of that is possibly linked to the entry of private operators before someone actually worked out how public transport in Dublin should work.

Competition is not necessary if the system is run correctly. Unfortunately what we currently have is a botched up system that doesn't really work in any meaningful way but which is designed in the best interests of the operators and not of the passengers. I used to live in Swords. Integration between local bus services and the Swords Express would have been useful.

In other words, although we have competition to some extent, it's delusional to suggest that in any meaningful manner it's serving the passenger well.

When we get every transit operator including Luas, Dart, Dublin Bus and all - i mean ALL - of the private operators - using some sort of common ticketing system then we might be in the right place. I don't recall any evidence that the PDs actually cared about how their decisions impacted on the passengers, only on how it impacted on private companies.

DWCommuter

Calina wrote: »

How a service is provided is not as important as it being provided efficiently. With respect to Aircoach, the only one on which I can comment, it's systematically less punctual than the equivalent Dublin Bus service, hence I use the DB 747 service for the city centre out of preference.

That being said, the issue is that private competition as it exists here does not allow integrated ticketing. Part of that is possibly linked to the entry of private operators before someone actually worked out how public transport in Dublin should work.

Competition is not necessary if the system is run correctly. Unfortunately what we currently have is a botched up system that doesn't really work in any meaningful way but which is designed in the best interests of the operators and not of the passengers. I used to live in Swords. Integration between local bus services and the Swords Express would have been useful.

In other words, although we have competition to some extent, it's delusional to suggest that in any meaningful manner it's serving the passenger well.

When we get every transit operator including Luas, Dart, Dublin Bus and all - i mean ALL - of the private operators - using some sort of common ticketing system then we might be in the right place. I don't recall any evidence that the PDs actually cared about how their decisions impacted on the passengers, only on how it impacted on private companies.

Basically you are saying that a plan should come first and then infrastructure should follow? That makes perfect sense and has been pointed out endlessly over the years by me, you and tonnes of others. However the failure of the myriad of agencies to communicate and the failure of the DOT to navigate has lead us here along with many other reasons that have been pointed out.

As for the PD issue, the damage was done long before they got their snouts stuck up Fianna Fails behind. Competition is great. Private operators are great, but it must all be strung together under a cohesive and long term plan. For example. Integrated ticketing should have been done BEFORE the rush to allow private operators into the market, so the adoption of the technology becomes a requirement of being granted a license.

Sponge Bob

Ah but sure that integrated ticketing fiasco was nobodys fault. It will not be rectified by the NTA which hs no responsibility for CIE either.

Metrobest

Calina wrote: »

How a service is provided is not as important as it being provided efficiently. With respect to Aircoach, the only one on which I can comment, it's systematically less punctual than the equivalent Dublin Bus service, hence I use the DB 747 service for the city centre out of preference.

That being said, the issue is that private competition as it exists here does not allow integrated ticketing. Part of that is possibly linked to the entry of private operators before someone actually worked out how public transport in Dublin should work.

Competition is not necessary if the system is run correctly. Unfortunately what we currently have is a botched up system that doesn't really work in any meaningful way but which is designed in the best interests of the operators and not of the passengers. I used to live in Swords. Integration between local bus services and the Swords Express would have been useful.

In other words, although we have competition to some extent, it's delusional to suggest that in any meaningful manner it's serving the passenger well.

When we get every transit operator including Luas, Dart, Dublin Bus and all - i mean ALL - of the private operators - using some sort of common ticketing system then we might be in the right place. I don't recall any evidence that the PDs actually cared about how their decisions impacted on the passengers, only on how it impacted on private companies.

Competition is not the problem - (lack of) regulation is. I think the PDs would argue that sensible deregulation benefits consumers. Arguing for state protection of pet industries is a dinosaur argument.

You criticize the lack of integrated ticketing. Who's to blame? Not the private sector. CIE have done their utmost to prevent integrated ticketing and make the products baffling from a customer point of view.

Ireland is wasting hundreds of millions on CIE at a time when the country is in dire straits financially. The solution is not to keep CIE free of competition. It's to make CIE a leaner, more efficient organization, maintaining an ethos of public service but with the stated goal of operating at zero or minimal cost to the taxpayer. This is achievable through efficiences (eg. get rid of ticket sellers) and through healthy competition.

The subsidy, being wasted through CIE inefficiency, would be better put into building more luas and metro lines in Dublin! The subsidy for CIE would pay the annual PPP cost (spread over 30 years) of about three metro lines, which would ultimately be profitable and fuel economic growth. Pumping money into half-empty trains to Ballina and Rosslare to support redundant functions like ticket offices in rural train stations is a zero sum policy.

Ireland needs to capitalize on what can sustain it going forward and it needs to ruthless about what should be killed off. The government made a great first step in downsizing the civil service - now it's time to extend the hatchet to dinasaurs like CIE.

The luas is crucial to projecting an image of Ireland as a modern, western country. And it plays a role in luring top international talent to the city, as David McWilliams points out here http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/lets-grab-this-golden-chance-46188.html

dowlingm

In fairness, integrating ticketing is a messy business because many of the systems being integrated have well understood fare classes and discounts which have to be either merged or accomodated. We are currently going through that with the Greater Toronto PRESTO card development which is trying to sync fare-by-distance regional rail with a multi-mode single fare zone in Toronto and various other types in the neighbouring municipality local systems linked by the aforementioned regional rail. Monthly "passes" are replaced by a loyalty scheme which adjusts depending on usage that month. This is useful in months like December or February or when you go on vacation.

The fact is that when you integrate fares you mess with business models and there are suspicions and jockeying for position around the notion that one operators fares will be used to subvent another's whereas in a de-linked system you know how much you're making. While this may come across as obstruction the reality is that if the balance between bus/light rail/heavy rail distance/payment rates is wrongly set it may take some doing to make it right.

This has to be overridden because of the balance of convenience to riders and the ability to gather accurate statistics on usage and mode transfers to make capacity changes and route additions more rational. If necessary, operators could simply have their capacity purchased by the Transport Authority on a seat-km basis with adjustments for actual trips delivered and on-time performance - the number of people on the trip would not be a direct issue for the operator and fare enforcement on a Proof Of Purchase basis would be handled by employees of the Authority.

Zebra3

It may be a messy business, but it's one that should have been sorted out donkeys years ago. :mad:

crocro

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It ended up costing nearly 3 times as much as was initially projected. The Red and Green lines, at €675m for 16.5km , spent €41m a KM ( €66m a mile) on that network which is comparable to what the French spent later in the mid decade.

Some of your numbers are a bit out.

The Red line was 16km when built, the Green line was 9km, so a total of 25km. The amount spent was €775m. The total spent was thus €31m/km.

The docklands extension was twice this price per km. There are probably good reasons for this amongst which:

• Labour cost inflation since the original luas construction.
• Land around the point and spencer dock had to be acquired in the most expensive part of the city at the height of the property boom.
• A €5m architectural feature bridge was constructed, another bridge was widened.
• Service diversion had to be treated very seriously due to the risk of interruption to IFSC critical infrastructure.
• The cost included rolling stock.

The project was built within budget and on time. The estimated costs were independently audited prior to approval by government. Around 20m was raised from developer contributions.

The project will be immediately cost benefit positive but this is likely to be further improved when additions to the luas network are made such as a spur crossing the Beckett bridge or extensions into new residential districts in the docklands or Poolbeg.

Works like this are of course subject to competitive tender so sponge bob enterprises should bid for the next contract if it feels it could do it for less. I noticed that line B1 was being built by Portuguese workers, so it's not a case of the project contractors being limited to Irish firms.

Sponge Bob

crocro wrote: »

Some of your numbers are a bit out.

The Red line was 16km when built, the Green line was 9km, so a total of 25km. The amount spent was €775m. The total spent was thus €31m/km.

Thanks. You may have noted that I did not consider the spend to be remarkable at €40m and your numbers make it less so.

The docklands extension was twice this price per km. There are probably good reasons for this amongst which:

• Labour cost inflation since the original luas construction.
• Land around the point and spencer dock had to be acquired in the most expensive part of the city at the height of the property boom.
• A €5m architectural feature bridge was constructed, another bridge was widened.
• Service diversion had to be treated very seriously due to the risk of interruption to IFSC critical infrastructure.
• The cost included rolling stock.

I am not sure that much if any land was acquired. Can you tell me where these acquisitions were and for how much , thanks!!!!

Service diversion along a 1.5km stretch would have been a few million at most even while being done mainly at the weekend in the case of electricity and telecoms with more latitude for water and sewers.

The project was built within budget and on time. The estimated costs were independently audited prior to approval by government. Around 20m was raised from developer contributions.

Ah yes, it was built inside the estimated cost of €99.5m ( page 10) and on time.

However there was a large scale fuzz factor iin that figure for the netting off of developer contributions against the €99.5m.

The promised €20m contribution from Spencer Dock was converted form a capitalisable €20m to an Easement ...and we do not know how the RPA accounted for an easement rather than a TRANSFER of lands or a CPO if indeed one took place. An Easement is a Wayleave for a specific purpose.

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7839-0.pdf ( page 23)

These companies are not consenting to any transfer of their lands to the RPA because they contend that such a transfer would breach its Planning Permission which requires that a reservation be given to the RPA in respect of the LUAS, and they submit that a CPO is unnecessary because of an Easement Agreement entered by them with the RPA.

Is the €90m figure net of developers contributions ( and land) or is it gross ??? We have not been told.

Treasury holdings first 'donated' very large amounts of the land used, 1/3 at least and then 'undonated' these lands. The project runs mainly on the street but _some_ land was also acquired albeit not very much.

The entire project only has a footprint of less than 2 hectares mainly on the street.

Nor do we 'know' what happened with CIE lands.

The project will be immediately cost benefit positive but this is likely to be further improved when additions to the luas network are made such as a spur crossing the Beckett bridge or extensions into new residential districts in the docklands or Poolbeg.

From my memory of the works in upper mayor street nothing whatsoever was done to make it 'easy' to 'T' off the line towards the Beckett Bridge and it would be a tight curve there. No doubt the Spencer Dock lads will be along with a land donation

Works like this are of course subject to competitive tender so sponge bob enterprises should bid for the next contract if it feels it could do it for less.

I hope there isn't another contract after that farce

Ciaranpm

Then they sneak in a fare increase last wednesday without telling anyone!!!

Guy:Incognito

Ciaranpm wrote: »

Then they sneak in a fare increase last wednesday without telling anyone!!!

A blanket one? I just checked the route I've been using for the last 3 months on their fare calculator and it's giving me the same fare I was paying.

dereko1969

is it not just a different fare for the docklands extension? not a price increase as the route wasn't there before.