Metro North and Dart Underground costs revealed

OssianSmyth

Metro North has full planning permission for 10 years. It lacks political support.

Annual costs over 30yrs for the Metro would be around €200m or 0.3% of total €68bn expenditure. Rightly or wrongly, elected representatives prefer to spend that money elsewhere.

For example, RTE receives €180m per year in licence fees to help double its advertising revenue. Mortgage interest relief cost the state about €280m/year, to incentivise people to get into debt. €60m is paid out annually to peat power stations in Offaly and Lough Ree to encourage the incineration of a non-renewable resource and despite the fact that peat pollutes more than coal.

These are policy choices.

AlekSmart

spacetweek wrote: »

Insulting nonsense - every country imports talent anyway. (The Jubilee Line Extension in London in the 90s was designed by a guy from Hong Kong.) Pretty much any 'creative' idea about Dublin's transport needs has already been thought of - look at how much time we've had to think of them - decades.

The reason we aren't doing it your way is because that idea was already considered during planning and rejected, mainly due to constraints on Connolly. The DU/MN solution *is* the elegant one as it creates a 3-line network which solves all the capacity problems, avoids centralising too many journeys and interchanges on one station and will be easy to use for the passenger.

The Luas BXD is a separate system with a different user base and you cannot replace the Green-Red connection with an underground line. Transport users avoid switching modes during their journey. A rule of thumb is that the maximum number of changes on a journey is 2, but most travellers aim for 0. A system that requires taking a Luas to Stephen's Green followed by one more stop on a Metro is not a usable system. A guy upthread said we should still build the Luas out to Liffey Junction but not the city centre link, this would be even worse as you'd have an inexplicable 1-mile gap in the centre of a cross. We would still not have fixed the connectivity issues that the Luas suffers from. The unconnected network was only ever meant to be a temporary fix and here we still are mucking about.

I'm getting my ideas from actual usage of city transport systems abroad, this isn't just all academic on my part.

Good post IMO.

However whilst the issue of in-journey changes are seen as anathema to us Irish,this is only due to our total inability to make our current systems change-friendly.

Whilst this thread centre's on the (many and varied) Rail Based soultions,it fails to direct any focus on the pre-existing Bus Service,something which only carries on from the (Many and Varied) studies being quoted.

My experience of changes en-route is that IF the frequency of services (Bus or Rail) on any route is sufficient then customer perception remains acceptant,this acceptance should now be enhanced by the arrival of RTPI and Mobile based tracking services.

A former MD of Dublin Bus,Bob Montgomery (Now a senior executive in Stagecoach UK) was responsible for a substantial body of research which identified 10 minutes as being the absolute maximum wait which a Public Transport user was comfortable with.

This comfort level was also influenced by the infrastructure in which it would be experienced,so comfortable,well lit and protected Stops were a pre-requisite,as well as information as to the service status.

All of this information was collected and collated in the late 1980's to mid 1990's,and used in the formulation and introduction of the City Swift and City Imp brands of Bus Service c 1994.

By far and away the greatest impediment to achieving any effective usability of our Public Transport in an integrated manner is the continuing Admistrative Policy to regard each and every mode of our Public Transport systems as seperate and,more importantly,NOT in any way integral with the City's day to day operations.

Dublin Bus,as the largest single PT entity on a day to day basis,thus stumbles along supposedly "Serving the entire community",but in attempting this,ends up serving fewer and fewer of this "Community" or at least only those sections enjoying access to effective representation.

Another central issue is Funding.....put simply,our current systems are providing a service level at knockdown rates to the State.

The systems,worldwide, which people regularly use as comparators,are all vastly more expensive to operate than our own.

However,equally in virtually all of these systems,the State or City Infrastructure embraces a far greater element of the Operating Costs.

I would suggest that it would be well nigh impossible to find one of these Flagship PT systems operating without subvention levels often at a multiple of our own.

Effective,affordable and popular Public Transport COSTS,and we have historically been incapable of accepting the necessity of spreading these costs socially,across the widest possible contributing base.

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2567.pdf

Instead,our systems customers,particularly Bus,are expected to contribute up to 96% of revenue which has led to the unsustainably high levels of general fares in Dublin.

Sadly,it IS a Political Football which,in the absence of effective lobbying,is unlikely to change anytime soon.

D.L.R.

markpb wrote: »

I don't believe our inability to deliver large public transport projects has anything to do with our planning procedures - the problems are entirely political. If our politicians wanted to build a metro (like they wanted to build the motorways), the planning system wouldn't have stopped them. Instead every minister has to design the system from scratch and/or do the cost benefit analysis all over again. The fault lies as much with the electorate as it does with the politicians - if enough people demanded to know why a metro hasn't been built, it would be a higher priority for them.

Agreed, when I say "planning procedures" I'm talking about our ability to get this kind of key infrastructure built, and yes politics has everything to do with that. Too many hoops to jump through, too many vested interests, and too many parish pumpers holidng their own country back out of personal greed.

spacetweek wrote: »

I agree completely. But do you know what makes it worse? Endlessly redesigning things, which you're advocating. The design of Metro/DART didn't take place in a silo, they consulted with the community and actually looked at the journeys people are trying to make.

Well I'm not seriously advocating a rethink, I'm just sick of the temporary fixes and resulting inefficient mish-mash we invariably end up with.

BXD and Metro North weren't designed together as part of a masterplan, they just sort evolved together because the green line plan was too vague and spoofy. And the result is disappointing and kind of .. idiotic really.

We need more biting the bullet and just building the thing we need TODAY, and reap the benefits sooner. That's what its all about for me. Too many half-assed solutions, which results in Dublin look pretty second rate compared to other W.European cities of its size.

hfallada

It doesn't help that the policy of Dublin city council was not to allow high rise building in the city centre apparently as it would destroy the city skyline. I believe because in ireland high rise apartments were considered a failure because of Ballymun. This result on huge amount of urban sprawl and people without adequate public transport. The housing estates should have had light rail train put in place as part of planning permission.

If there was a mayor for Dublin who had power and not just a title like they currently have now. Dublin might have more funding for transport. Some one who independent of Policital party and shouts for funding for Dublin

etchyed

D.L.R. wrote: »

An underground system (however its designed!!) is vital for the state's economic engine.

It is extremely dangerous and irresponsible to be this prescriptive about the solution Dublin requires. You sound exactly like the politicians you're complaining about. Who are you to say what's vital? You can't possibly understand the economic effects that the construction of an underground system would have. I don't mean that personally; none of us can know for certain.

I think Dublin needs a better public transport system. I would love to see MN and DU go ahead. I think they are great projects and would have a transformational effect on the city. But a sweeping claim that a particular mode of transport is "vital" is going too far.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Well I'm not seriously advocating a rethink, I'm just sick of the temporary fixes and resulting inefficient mish-mash we invariably end up with.

Once again, I agree with your frustration. The way the green line was built, terminating pathetically at St. Stephen's Green, with vague claims that it could be upgraded to metro, is sickening, and it's a result of all the political dicking about you've described.

But, at the risk of sounding clichéd, we have to start from where we are. We have a stub of a tram line that terminates as soon as it gets near the city centre. It makes sense to turn this into a cross-city line. It obviously can't dive into a portal on Stephen's Green, so it has to proceed at street level.

Metro North will cross the city centre, with provision for extension further south. This will create two north-south lines that overlap in the city centre. This duplication is obviously not ideal, and it would be better if both lines could share an underground core section, but that's simply not possible.

D.L.R. wrote: »

...I just don't think we have the talent in this country for an elegant solution...

This is insulting. Now that you've backtracked and agreed that the failure is more about politics, it would be nice if you could either take it back or justify it.

lucernarian

etchyed wrote:

It is extremely dangerous and irresponsible to be this prescriptive about the solution Dublin requires. You sound exactly like the politicians you're complaining about. Who are you to say what's vital? You can't possibly understand the economic effects that the construction of an underground system would have. I don't mean that personally; none of us can know for certain.

I think Dublin needs a better public transport system. I would love to see MN and DU go ahead. I think they are great projects and would have a transformational effect on the city. But a sweeping claim that a particular mode of transport is "vital" is going too far.

I think expressing an opinion on what Dublin needs for public transport is below the level of "dangerous and irresponsible", no matter how strongly emphasised! That's a bit of an overreaction. Anyway someone, sooner or later, has to sign off on the order to build these kinds of megaprojects. They're big decisions and no official should take them lightly. Cost-benefit analyses are produced for exactly this reason. While we can never be certain on the consequences of any one decision, it's part of good governance to nail down as many of these consequences as possible and to take the initiative on considered grounds.

But, at the risk of sounding clichéd, we have to start from where we are. We have a stub of a tram line that terminates as soon as it gets near the city centre. It makes sense to turn this into a cross-city line. It obviously can't dive into a portal on Stephen's Green, so it has to proceed at street level.

This part is as much a matter of opinion, informed of course, as most of the commentary on this so far. I don't see the need to "heckle" you over it even if I think parts of the Luas link-up are of questionable merit as part of the greater plans for rail-based transport in the city.

I do think that the DU and MN are vital to the future of public transport in Dublin and I see no problems with saying it when I read through the studies that have talked about this over the last few years and how they all arrive at similar conclusions. This reaction is over the top, with all due respect.

Jamie2k9

Dart Underground is needed but Metro North needs to be visited again as the proposed plans are just no right for the city.

Aard

What do you mean by saying that the MN plans are just not right for the city? What would you propose instead?

strassenwo!f

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-north-levies-to-be-cut-1.1369129

The Irish Times wrote:

Metro North levies to be cut

Councils will reduce but not scrap development charges for the postponed line [/SIZE][/B]

Dublin local authorities are to cut development levies for the shelved Metro North rail line by up to one third, but say they will not scrap the charge.

Fingal County Council have between them collected almost €18 million in levies paid by residential and commercial developers who were granted permission to build near to where the line was to run.


<snip>

These numbers are paltry compared to the estimated cost of the metro line: 18 million versus 2 billion plus.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be collected. But it would be interesting to know if the levies from developers for the other RPA projects in recent years were in or around the same ratio of levy to overall cost.

The RPA developments of recent years to CityWest, the Point Depot and to Cherrywood were all developer-led projects.

I don't have the figures for the developer contributions to these projects. However, if they were of the same order as those given above for the metro north levies, i.e. almost irrelevant compared to the actual projected cost of the scheme, many Dubliners would be entitled to wonder why these projects were prioritised over possible schemes to other areas of Dublin which have been populated by taxpayers for decades.

murphaph

However, the agency recently informed the local authorities that the projected capital costs of the line had reduced and it would be appropriate for the councils to consider reducing the levy.

...using this logic they should refund 1/3 of already paid levies because they haven't actually built anything yet, so the already collected levies have not benefited the contributors one iota. An unbuilt metro in Ireland with no concrete commitment to build has ZERO effect on the price of any development adjacent to it's proposed alignment.

strassenwo!f

Sorry, Victor, I didn't realise there was a problem with quoting an entire report. Is this a new thing? (or is there some other problem with what I did?)

Anyway, apologies.

markpb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But it would be interesting to know if the levies from developers for the other RPA projects in recent years were in or around the same ratio of levy to overall cost.

I think you're mixing up two different schemes. The development levies in the article are charged to anyone building on land which benefits from the proximity of a Luas line. They are not meant to cover the costs of providing the service, it's a way of taxing the added profits a developer makes by building close to infrastructure.

The cost of building the Citywest branch was split more evenly between a small number of developers and the RPA. IIRC those developers contributed between one third and one half of the total construction cost.

strassenwo!f

markpb wrote: »

I think you're mixing up two different schemes.

No, I wasn't mixing them up, I was attempting to draw parallels between the different projects.

markpb wrote: »

The development levies in the article are charged to anyone building on land which benefits from the proximity of a Luas line.

I think you are mixing up two different schemes:P. The article was about the proximity of the metro, not the LUAS.

markpb wrote: »

They are not meant to cover the costs of providing the service, it's a way of taxing the added profits a developer makes by building close to infrastructure.

Well, thanks indeed for the clarification of what these levies are for.

markpb wrote: »

The cost of building the Citywest branch was split more evenly between a small number of developers and the RPA. IIRC those developers contributed between one third and one half of the total construction cost.

Do you have any figures for how much of a contribution was actually paid by these developers?

strassenwo!f

Victor, still waiting for an explanation for the snip.

With the post count you've got, another ONE is surely not going to kill you.

etchyed

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Victor, still waiting for an explanation for the snip.

With the post count you've got, another ONE is surely not going to kill you.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055048043
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77390771

[Jackass]

OssianSmyth wrote: »

In a recent document from the C&AG, I notice the estimated costs for these projects had finally been published. Up to now they had been treated like the secrets of Fatima.

Metro North: €3bn
Dart Underground: €4bn
Metro West: €1.4bn

Metro North has planning permission until 2020
Dart Underground's permission is subject to a judicial review but will get 10 years permission if it wins that case.

The next date when the government says it will review these projects is 2015 (next capital envelope). Presumably we are waiting for the next boom so that the price of materials and labour will be higher.

Ireland's 10 year cost of borrowing is now back at 4%.

€226m spent to date on these three cancelled projects. Will they ever happen?

So was DART underground just 6 stops in and around a 1 mile radius? You're talking about half a billion per stop. Oh Ireland. :pac:

I do think a subway system is badly needed, as the existing line is far beyond capacity, there's no way to bypass the bottle neck between Tara and Connolly and the route should cover the main streets of the city, instead of the DART that just about comes in to the tip of town and back out again, not really servicing any inner city commute.

Once the LUAS lines are linked up it'll be a lot better, but to be honest, with all these higgledy piggledy lines and link ups etc., I think in true Irish fashion, we've just made it up as we went along and made a complete balls of the whole thing and managed to do so at massive expense.

Also, not having an express major rail linkup with the airport to city centre is an absolute joke. Every major city in Europe has one.

etchyed

[Jackass] wrote: »

...but to be honest, with all these higgledy piggledy lines and link ups etc., I think in true Irish fashion, we've just made it up as we went along and made a complete balls of the whole thing and managed to do so at massive expense.

I agree with the "made it up as we went along" thing to an extent. The lack of foresight that led to the green line terminating in St. Stephen's Green, with no prospect of connecting it to Metro North, was pretty unforgivable.

However, starting from that position, the planned rail network in Dublin did make sense. It consisted of an S-Bahn/RER/Crossrail-style tunnel to massively increase the capacity of suburban heavy rail and increase its penetration into the city, along with the cheaper option of light metro for a north-south spine.

This would have resulted in three high-capacity cross-city lines (Metro North admittedly not going very far south, but with the potential for extension). There would have been a triangle of interchange stations (St. Stephen's Green, Pearse and Drumcondra) meaning only one change of train would be required to switch between any of these three lines.

What was higgledy-piggledy about that?

OssianSmyth

[Jackass] wrote: »

So was DART underground just 6 stops in and around a 1 mile radius? You're talking about half a billion per stop.

The price shown is the working number the government was predicting before bids were received. We don't know how much the bid would have been or indeed how much cheaper it would be now that tender prices have collapsed.

A tunnel from Inchicore to Connolly through SSG and Pearse would not fit in a mile radius! The tunnel alone would be closer to 8km The full project costs also included electrification and resignalling of the Maynooth and Kildare lines. It's a pity that the state won't even proceed with one of these smaller electrification projects which would make the interconnector project more likely to happen in future.

Victor

etchyed wrote: »

I agree with the "made it up as we went along" thing to an extent. The lack of foresight that led to the green line terminating in St. Stephen's Green, with no prospect of connecting it to Metro North, was pretty unforgivable.

A full range of options of for connecting Metro North and the Green Line were studied.

etchyed

Victor wrote: »

A full range of options of for connecting Metro North and the Green Line were studied.

That doesn't really contradict what I said. Presumably they were found to be unworkable/unjustifiable if none of them was chosen. Would you care to provide more detail?

aindriu80

I always thought they should have went ahead with a metro for Dublin starting with Metro north. It's money well spent and we do need jobs.

Mahogany

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

For a train service that's even slower than the express buses? What a waste of money. It wouldn't be so bad if such a train service was built out to Swords via the airport but I don't think the airport alone deserves even €300 million in such expenditure when it's already served by a considerable number of bus routes beside a motorway.

We're probably the only country in Europe without a rail link to the Airport, the service is slow? then invest in the service.

Majority of the passengers using MN will be Airport bound, there's enough buses down that way, leave it at that.

cgcsb

Mahogany wrote: »

Majority of the passengers using MN will be Airport bound.

Unlikely. Especially during peak hours.

Victor

etchyed wrote: »

That doesn't really contradict what I said. Presumably they were found to be unworkable/unjustifiable if none of them was chosen. Would you care to provide more detail?

I found a slightly novel way of connecting MN and the Green line and they had already considered it and were able to give me the various pros and cons of that option. They didn't reaveal all their options. However, given the loop under St. Stephen's Green, there is potential for more than one southern extension, e.g. Green Line plus Rathmines / Harold's Cross.

etchyed

etchyed wrote: »

Would you care to provide more detail?

Victor wrote: »

I found a slightly novel way of connecting MN and the Green line...

So no, then.

Aard

Victor wrote: »

I found a slightly novel way of connecting MN and the Green line and they had already considered it and were able to give me the various pros and cons of that option. They didn't reaveal all their options. However, given the loop under St. Stephen's Green, there is potential for more than one southern extension, e.g. Green Line plus Rathmines / Harold's Cross.

Is there any southbound extension to MN that is emerging as the preferred route? There seem to be four possibilities:
-N11
-Green Line
-Luas E towards Rathfarnham
-Poddle route towards Tallaght.

Do any of these ever get talked about? And if so how seriously are any of them taken?

cgcsb

Aard wrote: »

Is there any southbound extension to MN that is emerging as the preferred route? There seem to be four possibilities:
-N11
-Green Line
-Luas E towards Rathfarnham
-Poddle route towards Tallaght.

Do any of these ever get talked about? And if so how seriously are any of them taken?

a luas E / poddle route to Tallaght would be the front runner for a souther extension.

The green line would be out because there would be too much dupilcation of service. The N11 is approx half way between the DART and Green luas so it would be taking in a lot of the same catchment. The N11 also has the best uninterupted QBC in Dublin. The N11 may see a switch from QBC to BRT in the future.

South West Dublin (Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Harold's X etc.) on the other hand is full of densely populated suburbs. These areas are crippled by peak time traffic and there is no main arterial routes in the area for metro to compete with. Introducing metro to these areas will really put a dent in the car orientated modal split.

AngryLips

To be honest I could never understand why MN was conceived as a city-centre terminating line anyway. It should always have been planned as feeding further south in order to avoid the congestion you will get at Stephens Green from people alighting there to continue their journeys southbound.

donvito99

Swords - Airport - SSG - Tallaght would be awesome. We deserve better than 65s and 15s, and the Terenure bottleneck.:rolleyes:

Cool Mo D

I think a Stephens green - South Circular - Harolds Cross - Terenure road (halfway between Terenure village and Kimmage) - Templogue -Tallaght route makes the most sense for a southern extension. Rathmines misses out, but it's still very close to the Luas and walking distance from Harolds cross. It also serves the most built up and congested southern suburbs, and could run above ground along the Templeogue - Tallaght dual carriageway to reduce costs.