C&AG report on Metro & DART underground cancellation

OssianSmyth

€216m spent to date including compensation to disappointed bidders. The amount was roughly known already but the C&AG provides some breakdown.

6.38 Three public transport PPP projects in development over a number of years have been postponed. The status and expenditure to date of each is outlined in Figure 6.6. The status of the projects when they were postponed is reflected in the level of costs incurred. Metro West was postponed at railway order application process stage, Dart Underground at pre-qualification of bidders stage and Metro North at the short listing of bidders stage.

Figure 6.6 Expenditure on Cancelled Public Transport Projects to end December 2011 - Amounts in €000s

Expenditure category |Metro North|Dart Underground|Metro West
Property acquisition| 25,668|—|—
Design & PPP procurement| 31,673| 19,921| 5,328
Enabling works| 51,058| —| —
Legal, financial, commercial and insurance advisors| 20,670| 4,668| 37
Railway order application/preparation| 10,477| 1,435| 10,173
Oral hearing| 5,510| —| 918
Other/overheads| 9,418| 17,086| 2,079
Total| 154,474| 43,110| 18,535

Source: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport

6.39 In the case of Metro North, a total of 13 properties were purchased by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and these properties continue to be held by them. The costs of these properties, including advice and other property related costs, amount to €25.7 million. No lands were
purchased in the case of Dart Underground and Metro North.

6.40 As part of the PPP tender competition for Metro North, it was agreed to compensate the underbidders for their verifiable tendering costs up to a maximum of €1 million each in the event of the PPP procurement process being deferred. The RPA have paid one of the bidders € 1 million in
compensation and it is awaiting further information to support the compensation claim of €1 million from the other.

strassenwo!f

They would appear to have mixed up the oral hearing figures for the DART Underground and Metrowest projects. Surely?

OssianSmyth

Well spotted. Also you'd hope they didn't spend 10m preparing a railway order for Metrowest

Sponge Bob

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Well spotted. Also you'd hope they didn't spend 10m preparing a railway order for Metrowest

They would if they had to buy out a scad of 'framework contract' consultants.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

They would appear to have mixed up the oral hearing figures for the DART Underground and Metrowest projects. Surely?

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Well spotted. Also you'd hope they didn't spend 10m preparing a railway order for Metrowest

Maybe or maybe not.

The railway order process was well advanced and you'd expect that they might spend somewhere around the same as the RPA spent on Metro North.

AngryLips

Metro West must be the most ill-conceived of all the RPA projects. A line taking you from nowhere to nowhere, did they even do any feasibility studies into it?

monument

AngryLips wrote: »

Metro West must be the most ill-conceived of all the RPA projects. A line taking you from nowhere to nowhere, did they even do any feasibility studies into it?

Just like the M50.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Maybe or maybe not.

The railway order process was well advanced and you'd expect that they might spend somewhere around the same as the RPA spent on Metro North.

I was working on the basis that the oral hearing figures were for the ABP process, which DART Underground and Metronorth advanced to, but the metrowest did not. Is this incorrect?

charlemont

F*cking fools, Money down the drain and nothing to show for it.

dowlingm

If the government hadn't agreed to the breaking open of the NPRF piggybank, first to buy shares in the banks and then to essentially pay the bondholders then these projects (or at least the ones that made some sense as designed - not metro west) could have been funded by the NPRF rather than the banks from the consortia.

There were two ENORMOUS mistakes in the NPRF: one, that the directed investment from the minister clause was ever put into the legislation and two, that when Europe came looking for the money the government didn't say "it's not our money to give - it's the pensioners money and we no longer have any rights over it". If a government in Canada tried to make a grab for the CPP fund or a provincial one like Caisse de depot, OMERS or Ontario Teachers simply to pay private debt they'd get a bigger hiding at the next election than FF got.

I think there was something to be said for Metro West - but as a LUAS, basically a "branch" of Lines A and F, possibly D, extended a bit at a time. A full 2.6m car width metro never made sense to me, capacity wise or operationally.

strassenwo!f

dowlingm wrote: »

I think there was something to be said for Metro West - but as a LUAS, basically a "branch" of Lines A and F, possibly D, extended a bit at a time. A full 2.6m car width metro never made sense to me, capacity wise or operationally.

There is a lot to be said for metrowest, but there are more pressing issues to be seen to, and it would be good to see it advanced when the city's main problems have been dealt with, i.e when we've dealt with the issue of getting people into the city and across the city.

The idea is good, just not a priority at the moment.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Just like the M50.

The M50 has lots of roads pouring on to it from every direction and always did - Metro West had very few other mass transport routes connecting to it.

Obviously that could be seriously enhanced but the current plan doesn't deal with it well.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The M50 has lots of roads pouring on to it from every direction and always did - Metro West had very few other mass transport routes connecting to it.

Obviously that could be seriously enhanced but the current plan doesn't deal with it well.

It's planned on the bases it would meet at least with the Red Line, two Dart lines, and Metro North, as well a load of bus routes.

To be honest, I think the Metro West route would be more suited to mostly at grade BRT.

AngryLips

I'd love to know what made them go with a Luas solution to Line F and a metro solution for metrowest given that there would be a far greater demand for the former than the latter.

[Jackass]

The expenditure on public projects is always staggering and never ceases to amaze me...216 million spent and nothing done. My God. That amount should be enough to have at least one of the projects completed in full.

Wasn't an almost identical project to the LUAS completed in France for under 40 million and it cost over 700 million here? Amazing...

Capt'n Midnight

MYOB wrote: »

The M50 has lots of roads pouring on to it from every direction and always did

The M50 wasn't ever going to be a Dublin Bypass for non-Dublin, if it was then there would be far fewer junctions on it. It was a city-centre bypass for local traffic.

what are the 17m on Dart underground overheads ?

[Jackass]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what are the 17m on Dart underground overheads ?

The fact that 30 million falls under the bracket of "other" says it all really. Probably sundries and travel expenses.

Capt'n Midnight

[Jackass] wrote: »

The fact that 30 million falls under the bracket of "other" says it all really. Probably sundries and travel expenses.

By coincidence the first M50 toll bridge cost thirty million

dowlingm

AngryLips wrote: »

I'd love to know what made them go with a Luas solution to Line F and a metro solution for metrowest given that there would be a far greater demand for the former than the latter.

F1 is just a branch of A, albeit excessively winding, and for metro in F2 it would have to be in tunnel. The more 2.4m network is laid the more yards can interconnect to the network.

monument

Jackass wrote:

Wasn't an almost identical project to the LUAS completed in France for under 40 million and it cost over 700 million here? Amazing.

You're making the claim, so you tell us: What project in France are you talking about?

dowlingm wrote: »

AngryLips wrote: »

I'd love to know what made them go with a Luas solution to Line F and a metro solution for metrowest given that there would be a far greater demand for the former than the latter.

F1 is just a branch of A, albeit excessively winding, and for metro in F2 it would have to be in tunnel. The more 2.4m network is laid the more yards can interconnect to the network.

Another reason is because it would be connected to Metro North and at least some services would use both lines -- ie Tallaght-Airport-Swords or maybe the less likely Blanch-North Finglas Park and Rides-DCU-City Centre (it looks convoluted on an actual map of Dublin, but not at all on the straight lines of a transport route map).

It's also just easier to do metro-like seggration on the MW route (both space and the less buildup setting) and there's greater reasons for it (ie limit conflicts with major roads into the city and major local roads around west Dublin).

dowlingm

Interconnector would be driven through much the same area of Dublin. Above ground light rail serves a different market not to mention much more retailer friendly with shorter stop lengths and being able to see the shops as they are passed. As a regenerator for the Liberties I'd say leave F2's plan as it is (in the deepfreeze until Stephen Donnelly gets the ECB to forgive 64bn of debt - see the oped in the Indo)

Carawaystick

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The M50 wasn't ever going to be a Dublin Bypass for non-Dublin, if it was then there would be far fewer junctions on it. It was a city-centre bypass for local traffic.

Apart from the r108 & Balymount) and the last bit build south of the beacon, aren't all the junctions ( and apart from the r104 on the re-designated bit) national routes? M11, N81, N7, N4, N3, N2, M1, N32??

Capt'n Midnight

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from the r108 & Balymount) and the last bit build south of the beacon, aren't all the junctions ( and apart from the r104 on the re-designated bit) national routes? M11, N81, N7, N4, N3, N2, M1, N32??

If it was for the sole purpose of bypassing Dublin then it would only need.

Port Tunnel
M1
N2
N3
N4/5/6
N7/M8/M9
M11

Even then why does Meath need 3 motorways ?

The N81 isn't a main artery and you could head out the Naas road and take a left at Newlands Cross. If you were going any distance down that way you'd probably be taking the N7/M11 anyway.

N31 ? use the M11 to Dun Laoghaire

There was even talk of building another motorway to bypass the bypass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Orbital_Route

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The M50 wasn't ever going to be a Dublin Bypass for non-Dublin, if it was then there would be far fewer junctions on it. It was a city-centre bypass for local traffic.

Apart from the r108 & Balymount) and the last bit build south of the beacon, aren't all the junctions ( and apart from the r104 on the re-designated bit) national routes? M11, N81, N7, N4, N3, N2, M1, N32??

Just because a road is marked as a national route does not mean that its primary use is not local and regional.

OssianSmyth

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Even then why does Meath need 3 motorways ?

Meath has four motorways not three!

antoobrien

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Even then why does Meath need 3 motorways ?

Well if we're asking silly questions why does Kildare need 3 (M4,7,9) and Laois need 2 (M7,8)?

They don't, however the primary reason for these motorways is not to serve the local routes, rather the national routes. The motorways pass through these counties by accident of geography - they're on the routes of the major towns to Dublin.

D.L.R.

antoobrien wrote: »

Well if we're asking silly questions why does Kildare need 3 (M4,7,9) and Laois need 2 (M7,8)?

They don't, however the primary reason for these motorways is not to serve the local routes, rather the national routes. The motorways pass through these counties by accident of geography - they're on the routes of the major towns to Dublin.

I think the underlying point he is trying to make here, is why do we need all this motorway? We have around EIGHT major radial motorways fanning out from Dublin. In a country of 4 million people that is quite honestly ridiculous, especially considering our deficiencies in other areas of transportation.

Don't forget, WE the taxpayer are subsidising the likes of the M3 to stay open, beacuse of the predictably low traffic levels for a 50km motorway to a town of 20,000 people. Come on now, there's no economic policy there, just parish pump madness. A bygone era now, and its only a few short years ago.

We have the motorways now, and yes its nice, but BOY did we mis-spend and over build. (And under plan the network)

antoobrien

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think the underlying point he is trying to make here, is why do we need all this motorway? We have around EIGHT major radial motorways fanning out from Dublin. In a country of 4 million people that is quite honestly ridiculous, especially considering our deficiencies in other areas of transportation.

Okay - take yourself back only 7 years - it was impossible to get into and out of Dublin. Also bear in mind that for most of the previous 20 years the increasing Dublinisation of the economy resulted in the vast majority of export goods going through Dublin port.

Now ask the question again - do we need all these 4 lane roads?

D.L.R. wrote: »

Don't forget, WE the taxpayer are subsidising the likes of the M3 to stay open, beacuse of the predictably low traffic levels for a 50km motorway to a town of 20,000 people.

You've forgotten that we, the taxpayer, are subsidising all the roads in the country! The M3 and a few others are being directly supported by the people that use those roads (I make double contributions to M4, 6 & 50 and have absolutely no problem doing so).

varberg

Surely a tram to the airport in dublin from the city centre should be a priority? Thousands of tourists arriving have to queue for buses or taxis day and night. It would serve santry,drumcondra, the mater, even croker right in to o connell st and even up as far as the green.

It would pay for itself in ten years, create loads of jobs in construction, surely it would be a massive success?

A light rail set up in cork city centre out to ucc, the mardyke and douglas would surely be profitable too?

We need effective public transport, currently its as cheap to drive to and from dublin as it is to get the train.If prices were kept low and constant more people would take the train.Its more public transport we need though not projects being put off for a few years.

AngryLips

antoobrien wrote: »

Okay - take yourself back only 7 years - it was impossible to get into and out of Dublin. Also bear in mind that for most of the previous 20 years the increasing Dublinisation of the economy resulted in the vast majority of export goods going through Dublin port.

Now ask the question again - do we need all these 4 lane roads?

Nobody is arguing that point, but it's a big leap between that and motorway being the optimal solution in all 8 cases.

antoobrien

AngryLips wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that point, but it's a big leap between that and motorway being the optimal solution in all 8 cases.

There's not a lot of difference (either technically or cost - somebody worked it out to maybe 5m per project, a drop in the well when you're looking at a multi million project) between a motorway and HQDC so the howls of complaints over a motorway being present are simply reverse NIMBYism.

The advantage to having a motorway over a DC (apart form a higher capacity, which in theory means a longer lifetime before upgrade/replacement) is in the legal differences. Motorways have greater online restrictions on the type of traffic that can use it (no pedestrians, cyclists, < 50cc vehicles etc.) and the planning regulations surrounding developments near junctions (which I believe were introduced after quarryvale).

Last weekend I was in Ballyhaunis, so I drove back to Dublin by Castlerea - Roscommon - Athlone on sunday evening. Due to the bendy nature of the road, Sunday drivers, people driving so as to prevent over overtaking causing convoys to form and the oncoming traffic I was only able to overtake 3 cars in that stretch (about 70 km), taking me as much time as athlone-dublin stretch, which is twice as long.

Am I saying we need a DC/Mway there - no, I'm saying be thankful for what we have available between the major centers.