Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Metro North Investment???
Comments
-
When you hear of things like this and see that fat bollix on the news with his massive jowls swaying it's enough to make you head to the airport. I honestly believe that Irish people are just too bent to govern ourselves, what we need to do is either become the 51st member of the united states or ask the brits to take us back. A change will just bring in different people but the same cronyism. How is jowls supposed to tackle the developers or bankers when he's teeing off with them the next day in portmarnock ?0
-
Pete_Cavan wrote: »
I did not say that nobody disagrees with me. I said nobody with any sense agrees with you. At least I took a series of quotes from other posters and gave my opinions which I backed up. If you can adequately explain to me how scrapping all capital investment and pumping money into a grossly inefficient health service that, per capita is one of the best funded in the world yet provides a very poor service, is going to return economic prosperity to this country I will gladly agree with you. Until then you can keep your sarcastic comments to yourself because you are losing credibility like the health service in losing money.
But can you explain why it is a good investment?0 -
But can you explain why it is a good investment?
First of all, the €6 billion quoted includes capital costs, interest payments, construction, maintenance and operation of the line for the next 25 - 30 years. That is actually pretty good value, highlighted by the fact that the EIB agreeing to provide €500 million in funding (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189). The EU would not pump half a billion euro into a project if they did not think it was viable. MN should get enough passengers to cover its cost for the life of the PPP contract, after which time the next contract for operating the route will generate huge income for the government.
MN will also create 4,000 construction jobs, many of these workers would otherwise be unemployed, therefore reducing social welfare payments. This will also create indirect employment with the people employed on MN project directly spending money in the wider economy. This increases government revenue. Now is the best time to build it because construction tender price have come down almost 30% so we get more for our money now. This country has also built up a lot of experience within the construction sector and we now have the ability (with the help of large foreign contractors as part of the winning consortium) and the capacity to build such a huge infrastructural project.
The route itself incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations; St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O'Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with over 10,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.
Some may argue that this only benefits Dublin so why should be focus the bulk of our transport budget for the next four years in one area? Well Dublin is the driving force of our economy (Dublin pays 50% of the countries tax) and without transfer payments from Dublin to other regions there would be very little money to pay for other projects down the country. Therefore an investment in Dublin is an investment in this country. In a time of limited funds we must focus limited resources to where they will have the most benefit. Improvements in public transport will make Dublin a more attractive city for MNCs who want to locate close to a highly skilled workforce and public transport brings the workforce to them. Dublin is an international city and is in competition with Birmingham, Brussels and Delhi for such jobs, its not in competition with Nenagh. Making the investment in Dublin will have far greater benefits to the country than spreading it out over lots of small, rather insignificant projects.
Dublin is currently choked by cars and we need to move away from personal transport in the city to public transport. MN will allow passengers to interchange with both Luas lines and both Dart lines once the Interconnector is completed so Dublin will finally have an integrated public transport network. MN will also increase passenger numbers on the other lines (Luas & Dart) by introducing new areas to the rail network and will increase the viability of other lines. Taking cars off the city streets will make Dublin a more attractive city both for its inhabitants and for tourists who may wish to come here. Dublin city centre could become a vibrant place for socialising, shopping and working and we should stop the recent trend of the M50 becoming the capitals main street with all the retail parks/offices along it.
MN will do so much for the city and this country and we should be happy that our little country is showing some signs of catching up with our cosmopolitan continental neighbours. This is something that will increase commercial activity in Dublin and this will be sustainable this time. The boom made us think we were richer and better then we really were but we must not let a setback like a global (yes it has happened in most of the developed world) recession send us back to the self loathing mentality of old. I know there are people on this forum who hate to see anybody with a positive outlook. If you can counter any of the points I have made, fair enough, but dont just drag in NAMA/bankers/spending cuts into this for the sake of a bit of negativity.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »First of all, the €6 billion quoted includes capital costs, interest payments, construction, maintenance and operation of the line for the next 25 - 30 years. That is actually pretty good value, highlighted by the fact that the EIB agreeing to provide €500 million in funding (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189). The EU would not pump half a billion euro into a project if they did not think it was viable. MN should get enough passengers to cover its cost for the life of the PPP contract, after which time the next contract for operating the route will generate huge income for the government.
MN will also create 4,000 construction jobs, many of these workers would otherwise be unemployed, therefore reducing social welfare payments. This will also create indirect employment with the people employed on MN project directly spending money in the wider economy. This increases government revenue. Now is the best time to build it because construction tender price have come down almost 30% so we get more for our money now. This country has also built up a lot of experience within the construction sector and we now have the ability (with the help of large foreign contractors as part of the winning consortium) and the capacity to build such a huge infrastructural project.
The route itself incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations; St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O'Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with over 10,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.
Some may argue that this only benefits Dublin so why should be focus the bulk of our transport budget for the next four years in one area? Well Dublin is the driving force of our economy (Dublin pays 50% of the countries tax) and without transfer payments from Dublin to other regions there would be very little money to pay for other projects down the country. Therefore an investment in Dublin is an investment in this country. In a time of limited funds we must focus limited resources to where they will have the most benefit. Improvements in public transport will make Dublin a more attractive city for MNCs who want to locate close to a highly skilled workforce and public transport brings the workforce to them. Dublin is an international city and is in competition with Birmingham, Brussels and Delhi for such jobs, its not in competition with Nenagh. Making the investment in Dublin will have far greater benefits to the country than spreading it out over lots of small, rather insignificant projects.
Dublin is currently choked by cars and we need to move away from personal transport in the city to public transport. MN will allow passengers to interchange with both Luas lines and both Dart lines once the Interconnector is completed so Dublin will finally have an integrated public transport network. MN will also increase passenger numbers on the other lines (Luas & Dart) by introducing new areas to the rail network and will increase the viability of other lines. Taking cars off the city streets will make Dublin a more attractive city both for its inhabitants and for tourists who may wish to come here. Dublin city centre could become a vibrant place for socialising, shopping and working and we should stop the recent trend of the M50 becoming the capitals main street with all the retail parks/offices along it.
MN will do so much for the city and this country and we should be happy that our little country is showing some signs of catching up with our cosmopolitan continental neighbours. This is something that will increase commercial activity in Dublin and this will be sustainable this time. The boom made us think we were richer and better then we really were but we must not let a setback like a global (yes it has happened in most of the developed world) recession send us back to the self loathing mentality of old. I know there are people on this forum who hate to see anybody with a positive outlook. If you can counter any of the points I have made, fair enough, but dont just drag in NAMA/bankers/spending cuts into this for the sake of a bit of negativity.
So in summary,- it will create 4,000 temporary jobs.
- It may reduce car numbers on roads. Luas didn't make a noticable difference. Have you any figures for the amount of cars it will take off the roads? I think it is more likely to reduce bus numbers than car numbers (as the LUAS did).
- It will help with additional public transport in the future.
- It will somehow increase comercial activity in Dublin. Sounds very vague. Care to quantify this?
0 -
So in summary,
- it will create 4,000 temporary jobs.
We have a highly skilled construction workforced built up during the boom. Many of these workers are now unemployed and have little hope of being employed in construction again in this country. The skills these people have are not easily transferable to other sectors (whats a block layer going to do in an office?). Therefore it makes sense to retain some of these people in construction instead of retraining them all. We will need construction workers in the future (although less than before) but while we have the skills lets utilise them. The jobs an MN may be temporary (but a job for the next two years in these times is not bad) but they can then be used on other infrastructure projects after MN. MN will do a lot to provide us with the funds for future infrastructure projects as well.- It may reduce car numbers on roads. Luas didn't make a noticable difference. Have you any figures for the amount of cars it will take off the roads? I think it is more likely to reduce bus numbers than car numbers (as the LUAS did).
The Luas carries on average 70,000 people a day with over 25 million passengers in 2009 (http://www.luas.ie/faqs.php). Do you really think all these people came from buses, walked or just never left the house before the Luas was built? The Luas takes thousands of cars off the road every day. MN will carry 34 million passengers a year and a lot these currently use their car as their main mode of transport. In a lot of cases the bus is not faster than the car because they share the same route and cars can take shortcuts. MN will be under ground in the city centre completely separated from traffic and has nothing to disrupt its journey. And so what if it reduces the number of buses. Dublin Bus is lossing money and we are all paying for it, at least the Luas is profitable (and afaik it is currently the only profitable rail line in the country). We should be moving away from buses to a more efficient rail system that will save us money in the long run.- It will help with additional public transport in the future.
When do you suggest we build a proper public transport system? When city are packed with private cars and we are crippled by the costs of providing an efficient public transport system that was even outdated when it was built in the 1980's! I see you are from the old Irish school of thought of Let the problem develop and then try to solve it.- It will somehow increase comercial activity in Dublin. Sounds very vague. Care to quantify this?
Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC)
The Development of an Internationally Sustainable Airport City Region
Volume 1 – Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations Page 39
http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/fingal_coco_mnec_v1.pdfThe Development Strategy should facilitate commercial and other development in the Corridor that would
support a total of 37,000 additional jobs in the corridor to a total of 66,700 representing a more-than-doubling of
the existing level of economic activity and employment in the area.
Maybe next time you would care to quantity your negative attitude towards this project?Doesn't sound that great an investment.
No but I bet your the kind of who thinks nothing sounds good. I did ask for a reasoned agrument if were going to disagree with me, not just negativity for negativities sake.0 -
Advertisement
-
Pete_Cavan wrote: »
I did ask for a reasoned agrument if were going to disagree with me, not just negativity for negativities sake.
I wasn't giving an argument at all. I was simply removing the waffle from your post to sumarize it. Based on that summary it does not sound like good value.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »[/LIST]We have a highly skilled construction workforced built up during the boom. Many of these workers are now unemployed and have little hope of being employed in construction again in this country. The skills these people have are not easily transferable to other sectors (whats a block layer going to do in an office?). Therefore it makes sense to retain some of these people in construction instead of retraining them all. We will need construction workers in the future (although less than before) but while we have the skills lets utilise them. The jobs an MN may be temporary (but a job for the next two years in these times is not bad) but they can then be used on other infrastructure projects after MN. MN will do a lot to provide us with the funds for future infrastructure projects as well.
Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.Pete_Cavan wrote: »[/
[/LIST]The Luas carries on average 70,000 people a day with over 25 million passengers in 2009 (http://www.luas.ie/faqs.php). Do you really think all these people came from buses, walked or just never left the house before the Luas was built? The Luas takes thousands of cars off the road every day.
I didn't say all these came from the buses but a huge proportion do. Dublin Bus estimates it has lost 41,000 passengers a day to the Luas.Pete_Cavan wrote: »[/
[/LIST]Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC)
The Development of an Internationally Sustainable Airport City Region
Volume 1 – Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations Page 39
http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/fingal_coco_mnec_v1.pdf
Obviously these jobs do not come from the metro north itself (and include building a new hospital and University which aint going to happen, and a doubling in areas population)0 -
-
Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.
So you are in favour of keeping these 4,000 people on the dole and maintaining our cripplingly high social welfare expenditure then are you? Like I said, we have the skilled construction workforce now so lets do it now. When would you have us do it? In ten years time when we would have to import a Chinese work force to do it for us and tender prices are higher?I didn't say all these came from the buses but a huge proportion do. Dublin Bus estimates it has lost 41,000 passengers a day to the Luas.
So in this case you are in favour of maintaining a loss making bus system instead of improving an efficient and profitable rail network! You are obviously a low paid worker who contributes very little in the way of taxes seeing as you do not seem to care how tax money is spent.Obviously these jobs do not come from the metro north itself.
That report is Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC) and is focused on job creation in this area. Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created. And even if there is large scale job creation in this area without MN (perhaps you will emply 37,000 people selling magic beans for you), it will not be sustainable without adequate public transport. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us a two lane M50 and then allowed shopping centres, business parks, industrial estates to spring up along it and then having to spend a fortune widening the road because it could not cope with all the traffic! Lets, for once in this countries history, do something right from the start.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Care to explain why it doesn't sound like good value, rather than dismissing it out of hand?
I said in my first post that I have an open mind about it and I do. I asked for reasons from people who support it as to why it is a good investment. My comment was based on what Pete Cavan said. Based on that it did not seem a good investment. I am still open to reasons supporting it.0 -
Advertisement
-
from the above posts i have seen good reasons why it is a vialble and valueble project, very few reasons apart from personal feeling as to why it would be a bad project.
Maybe a Bus rapid transit system would be a viable alternative? im just curious if we are getting the most value for money for this project, and if a similar ublic transport system could be constructed for less?
I know a metro is a more prestigeous service than s bus rapid transit system, would that be a factor in their decision making?0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »So you are in favour of keeping these 4,000 people on the dole and maintaining our cripplingly high social welfare expenditure then are you? Like I said, we have the skilled construction workforce now so lets do it now. When would you have us do it? In ten years time when we would have to import a Chinese work force to do it for us and tender prices are higher?
Totally stupid comment.Pete_Cavan wrote: »So in this case you are in favour of maintaining a loss making bus system instead of improving an efficient and profitable rail network! You are obviously a low paid worker who contributes very little in the way of taxes seeing as you do not seem to care how tax money is spent.
There are more options than Dublin bus or metro north. Indeed there are far better, cheaper ways to reduce congestion in Dublin.Pete_Cavan wrote: »That report is Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC) and is focused on job creation in this area. Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created. And even if there is large scale job creation in this area without MN (perhaps you will emply 37,000 people selling magic beans for you), it will not be sustainable without adequate public transport. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us a two lane M50 and then allowed shopping centres, business parks, industrial estates to spring up along it and then having to spend a fortune widening the road because it could not cope with all the traffic! Lets, for once in this countries history, do something right from the start.
More totally stupid comments. Pete Cavan I do not know if metro north is a good idea or not. Clearly neither do you. Perhaps someone who has some idea about it could comment.
I should add about the comment that "Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created". Is ridiculous. The area still exists but would not be called MNEC. The 4 main sources of the extra jobs are
1. Hospital: This will not happen if MN is built or not
2. University: This will not happen if MN is built or not
3 Dublin Airport more than doubling its passenger numbers. Metro North will not affect this to any great degree
4. Population of area doubles. I cannot see metro north causing the population to double.0 -
Totally stupid comment.
So what if used a bit of hyperbole at the end there. Are you actually going to tell me why we should not used our skilled construction work force to build a very complicated piece of infrastructure at a time when tender prices are at their lowest or are you going to ignore my main point?There are more options than Dublin bus or metro north. Indeed there are far better, cheaper ways to reduce congestion in Dublin.
Such as? A Bus Rapid Transport sytem as suggested by someone elso above is an alternative but I'll get into that with them. Until you have some realistic suggestions dont just make broad unspecific comments like that.More totally stupid comments. Pete Cavan I do not know if metro north is a good idea or not. Clearly neither do you. Perhaps someone who has some idea about it could comment.
Again you focus on a bit of exaggeration and use that as an excuse to ignore the real point. I quoted a report by an independent company to back up what I said, you just avoid the issue. Do you only consider people who agree with you as "someone who has some idea about it"?I said in my first post that I have an open mind about it and I do. I asked for reasons from people who support it as to why it is a good investment. My comment was based on what Pete Cavan said. Based on that it did not seem a good investment. I am still open to reasons supporting it.
You dont seem very open minded to me because based on what I said it seems a fantastic investment. I am open to reasons against it but only if they are well made and backed up.0 -
I am going to ignore the obvious economic, tourism and infrastructural benefits from having Swords and the Aiport covered for a moment.
As a North-Eastern Dubliner the Dart is an absolutely essential way of live for so many.
The north west / central badly need this.0 -
daithicarr wrote: »from the above posts i have seen good reasons why it is a vialble and valueble project, very few reasons apart from personal feeling as to why it would be a bad project.
Maybe a Bus rapid transit system would be a viable alternative? im just curious if we are getting the most value for money for this project, and if a similar ublic transport system could be constructed for less?
I know a metro is a more prestigeous service than s bus rapid transit system, would that be a factor in their decision making?
I think the main argument against a Bus Rapid Transit system is that the streets of Dublin are already congested with cars.
If a Rapid Transit system was set up, with dedicated lanes, it would remove lanes of traffic for cars, thereby increasing congestion.
Also, in our climate, a sub-surface transport system is highly attractive as there is little to no waiting of passengers in the wind and the rain, which, lets face it, we get for 9 months of the year. People dont mind a train/bus being a few minutes late if they are warm and dry.
Having dedicated stations which commuters use to board trains, makes the system easier to police, and lessens opportunities for anti-social behaviour - another problem that we have with buses in the Capital. How many junkies would there be on Dublin buses if there was a Guard at every bus stop?
As for your comment that a metro is a more prestigious service than a bus, and was it a factor in the decision making, I would say yes to an extent. Dublin is by all intents and purposes a modern European city. However, most major European cities have good transport in some shape or form, in most cases it takes the form of an underground system, and perhaps it is felt that to join the big leagues, we should have an underground too.Beeno67 wrote:Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.
I don't know how long it will take to build, but I would imagine 3-5 years minimum. If even half the workforce were taken off the dole for this project, it would be a saving to the Social Welfare of 392,000 euro per Week. which does not sound like very much, but over a year the Social Welfare bill would be 20 million euros less.0 -
I think the main argument against a Bus Rapid Transit system is that the streets of Dublin are already congested with cars.
If a Rapid Transit system was set up, with dedicated lanes, it would remove lanes of traffic for cars, thereby increasing congestion.
Also a city like Dublin was not designed for BRT and trying to install it now would be extremely expensive. Many of the streets and roads in and leading into the city centre are narrow and would not be able to accommodate the type of dedicated bus lanes needed for BRT. It works well in American cities where the roads are wide and the whole city is laid out in a regular grid pattern. In Dublin it is not that simple, for example, the route going from city centre to the airport (MN route) for BRT the bus lane has to merge with the general traffic lane in front of the Cat & Cage in Drumcondra where there is only one lane in either direction. There is no space for extra lanes, so why spend money on BRT when it will still hit the same bottlenecks the current bus system hits and will not be much faster.
Also the metro trams will have much higher capacity then a bus, rail often attracts more riders, particularly discretionary riders (travellers, also called choice riders, who could drive rather than use transit) and so is particularly effective at reducing traffic and parking problems, the metro will have much lower operating and maintenance costs then buses and the stations often serve as a catalyst for more accessible development patterns with increased density.0 -
must be why no other cities in Europe of comparable size haven't built underground systems either....oh wait.I wasn't giving an argument at all. I was simply removing the waffle from your post to sumarize it. Based on that summary it does not sound like good value.
We have to bite the bullet someday and start putting Dublin's transport links underground. The initial line was always going to be the 'big hitter' but once MN and the IC are in place, we can gradually expand the network year on year, just like here in Berlin they are STILL expanding the network, despite it being really comprehensive.0 -
must be why no other cities in Europe of comparable size haven't built underground systems either....oh wait.
We have to bite the bullet someday and start putting Dublin's transport links underground. The initial line was always going to be the 'big hitter' but once MN and the IC are in place, we can gradually expand the network year on year, just like here in Berlin they are STILL expanding the network, despite it being really comprehensive.
But the question is not whether it would be nice to have an underground or not. The question is "here is 4 billion to invest in Irelands infrastructure. What is the best way to invest that money?" I know people will say it is a public private partnership but it still comes down to a 4 billion cost.
On a separate question, the major problem leading to possible cost over runs will be going under Liffey & quays. What happens if there are major cost over runs?0 -
I would imagine the Govt have learnt their lesson from previous mistakes. For example they signed a design and build project for the M7 project, the contractor is responsible for the "Bog of Doom" and all extra costs associated with it and not the govt.
This is what should be done here also if the project gets off the ground0 -
Given that prices in the construction market have dropped HUGELY, the Gov should be able to get better value.
However equally if they're waving huge amounts of money around, every contractor in the company is going to take them for a ride because they're throwing the money at them. This project should be a major profit maker for contractors because prices are so low.
Obviously the Gov are too friggin stupid to cop this if they're still willing to pay 2007/2008 prices.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only potentially profitable schemes will interest PPP bidders, so it's not fair to say that a 4 billion cost is a 4 billion cost, because lots of schemes (in the areas of health or education, for example) will never turn a profit (nor should they necessarilly) and so the 4 billion funding (through the PPP mechanism) will never even be available to them.But the question is not whether it would be nice to have an underground or not. The question is "here is 4 billion to invest in Irelands infrastructure. What is the best way to invest that money?" I know people will say it is a public private partnership but it still comes down to a 4 billion cost.
On a separate question, the major problem leading to possible cost over runs will be going under Liffey & quays. What happens if there are major cost over runs?
There is an old adage that one can spread oneself too thinly...spreading the 4bn (borrowed money of course) around to every parish in the country would deliver a lot less for Ireland in the long run than directing ALL of it into the beginnings of a world class public transport network for Dublin, which in turn will allow us to continue to attract skilled people from around the world (and to keep our own) to Dublin, to generate income and thus taxes for the running of the whole country.
If Ireland INC is to make the break into the big leagues, Dublin MUST be given some priority to get it on a par with Copenhagen, Cologne, Munich, Lisbon etc. etc. in terms of it's infrastructure. Ireland as a whole will benefit greatly, not just Dublin, as Dublin is the beating heart of the economy.0 -
If Ireland INC is to make the break into the big leagues, Dublin MUST be given some priority to get it on a par with Copenhagen, Cologne, Munich, Lisbon etc. etc. in terms of it's infrastructure. Ireland as a whole will benefit greatly, not just Dublin, as Dublin is the beating heart of the economy.
I agree completely, having lived in various parts of dublin its clear the public transport is woefully inadequate, we need a metro system or some similar mass transport system, however for the price tag suggested it would seem by international comparisons we are getting a very small system for the amount spend, they could either save the money or build a much more extensive and greatly needed transport system.0 -
I might chip in here and add some thoughts:
Firstly, Dublin is one of the worst cities for getting around of any major capital in Europe. Part of it is design of the city, and most of it is poor provision. I live out in Blanch and travel regularly, and there is one small bus from a private contractor that will regularly take you to the airport, for example, and there are very few orbital routes for the rest of the city.
Go to Berlin, for example, and you can easily get from the city centre to any point around with layers of connecting orbital transport links.
You go into the hub and you come back out again, is how transport works in Dublin, which is silly.
Secondly, on infrastructure spending in general: Economic activity is defined by infrastructure. Road and rail links are where population centres build up.
Thirdly, spending borrowed money on infrastructure rather than current spending is creating something: You take people off the dole and pay them to work, and that pay isn't flittered away on someone watching daytime TV, it's someone who is building something tangible of value which, in turn, will bring further value to the country.0 -
But the question is not whether it would be nice to have an underground or not. The question is "here is 4 billion to invest in Irelands infrastructure. What is the best way to invest that money?" I know people will say it is a public private partnership but it still comes down to a 4 billion cost.
People have to realise we are currently borrowing €20bn a year, with a fair chunk of that paying for 400,000 people on the dole. At least constructing the Metro will take people off the dole for 2 -3 years, put them in employment (most of these were construction workers already so they have the skills) and at the end of it we are left with something that is going to contribute greatly to our economic growth in the future. MN will employ 5,000 to 6,000 people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, reducing social welfare payments as well as generating a lot of tax revenue.On a separate question, the major problem leading to possible cost over runs will be going under Liffey & quays. What happens if there are major cost over runs?
Under the new government form of construction contract, the government have ensured they are very well covered and have the option to transfer much of the risk of increasing costs to the contractor (many in the construction industry will tell you this is very unfair as they carry too much of the risk). Anyway it forces contractors to work more efficiently and ensure they remain within budget. The large degree of risk transfer is why many recent road projects were completed ahead of schedule and under budget ( because it means if the contractor goes over budget it may be at his own expense).Given that prices in the construction market have dropped HUGELY, the Gov should be able to get better value.
However equally if they're waving huge amounts of money around, every contractor in the company is going to take them for a ride because they're throwing the money at them. This project should be a major profit maker for contractors because prices are so low.
Not sure what you mean here. The RPA has narrowed down the list of potential constractors to two consortia and is currently negotiating with them. They are competing in competition with each other to win the contract which will ensure the lowest price. Construction costs will be very similar to both contractors so it may be the contractor who accepts the lowest level of profit who wins the contract.daithicarr wrote: »however for the price tag suggested it would seem by international comparisons we are getting a very small system for the amount spend, they could either save the money or build a much more extensive and greatly needed transport system.
On the cost, they will be spread over 25 years and we will pay €150 - €170 million a year, which is not a huge amount when you consider the €20bn we are currently borrowing. What we get for the money includes capital costs, interest payments, construction, maintenance and operation of the line for the next 25 - 30 years. If it seems we are not getting much for our money it is probably because you are comparing the cost of MN with the construction cost alone of another project. To get a realistic comparison you would have to take account of maintenance and operational costs on the other project for the next 30 years as well as interest payments.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »People have to realise we are currently borrowing €20bn a year, with a fair chunk of that paying for 400,000 people on the dole. At least constructing the Metro will take people off the dole for 2 -3 years, put them in employment (most of these were construction workers already so they have the skills) and at the end of it we are left with something that is going to contribute greatly to our economic growth in the future. MN will employ 5,000 to 6,000 people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, reducing social welfare payments as well as generating a lot of tax revenue.
You keep bringing up the same argument except now you have increased the number employed. They are temporary jobs and it works out at 1 million euro per job created. You cannot value infrastructure this way. You need to look at long term, permanent jobs that are newly created. Not jobs that move to this area because it has a metro and not jobs dependant on government funding.
We need to see a cost/benefit analysis of the metro. Has one been published. I haven't seen it. Can someone link it if they have it. Remember other infrastructure plans will not now go ahead, to allow metro be funded and other future needs may become unafordable due to cost of metro. The decision is not, do we have new infrastructure or not. It is whether the best value infrastructure is the metro or not. Arguments about creating jobs during construction are secondary.Pete_Cavan wrote: »Under the new government form of construction contract, the government have ensured they are very well covered and have the option to transfer much of the risk of increasing costs to the contractor (many in the construction industry will tell you this is very unfair as they carry too much of the risk). Anyway it forces contractors to work more efficiently and ensure they remain within budget. The large degree of risk transfer is why many recent road projects were completed ahead of schedule and under budget ( because it means if the contractor goes over budget it may be at his own expense).
I was talking specifically about the quays and the way they were originally built (basically on wood and mud). Serious problems here (the potential for which are regularly brought up by environmentalists)could see the cost double. Builders obviously will not take on this cost and will go bust first. Does the government have guarentees that if the contractor goes bust that it has some get out clause or will they end up paying?0 -
They’re not temporary jobs, they’re contract jobs. Temporary jobs last a few weeks, not a few years. A sizeable chunk of the workforce are without security of tenure beyond 2-3 years these days.You keep bringing up the same argument except now you have increased the number employed. They are temporary jobs...0 -
-
beeno67 could you define what you mean by good investment? Is it just an economic investment you are worried about i.e. money in = more money out? Do you not consider the project as a social investment aswell?
Improving the lives of people (tens of thousands) in North Dublin in addition to improving the first impression tourists landing in Dublin airport get? Improving the accessibility of the areas along the route and improving the attractiveness of these areas for businesses (Firstly, as there will be high volumes of commuters channeled through and srcondly, accessiblity for staff and clients). Improving links to the airport enhances business links and speeds up commutes for international travellers. Having a closed-circuit transport system (such as an underground) is preferable to a sprawling bu service which is hampered by road signals and traffic volumes - basically its easier to find your way around on a metro.
Even if you are only considering economic payback, the EIB has invested in this project and it will be PPP, the fact that it attracting tenders at this time suggests it is viable. You remind me of this guy who wrote into the Times with the following nonsenseThere is good reason to believe the current larger proposal is not viable either, not least given that the outlook for patronage has dropped sharply from that of the boom years when Metro North was conceived.
Some idiot like him was in charge when the m50 was being planned back in the 80s and went against the advice from the Japanese consultants - namely build 4 lanes both directions. Ah but sure that was far too big for the volume of cars we had at the time so we only built 2 :rolleyes: Ever hear of planning for the future? MN is the beginning of an underground system which will eventually link up the surburbs of the capital and the city.They are jobs, created for a temporary period of time, is what I meant.
And whats wrong with that? Would you turn down a job because it was on a contract/tempory basis?0 -
It's amazing the amount of you that think many of these possible construction jobs created would even go to Irish people at all. I'd hazard a bet that at least 90% of them will go to cheap labour subbies from Poland and suchlike.
Don't be kidding yourselves here thinking it'll bring a swath of Irish people off the dole.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's amazing the amount of you that think many of these possible construction jobs created would even go to Irish people at all. I'd hazard a bet that at least 90% of them will go to cheap labour subbies from Poland and suchlike.
Don't be kidding yourselves here thinking it'll bring a swath of Irish people off the dole.
It really depends who gets the contract. If a polish firm gets it then it seems highly likely that they will bring in their own workers who will work for less than the Irish (and probably work harder). If an Irish firm gets it, well who knows.
It's my understanding that these things can't simply be offered to an Irish company. All firms who want the project have to bid for it and it seem likely that non-Irish firms will be able to do the job cheaper. It should get some people off the dole but if this thing was built without creating a sizeable amount of jobs for the Irish, then I think it would be a terrible shame.
I guess we'll get to see how competitive (or not) we are.0
Advertisement