Luas bashing back in the Indo

[Ronald Binge]

Page 35 in the business section today (Monday 16th October) has a piece by Brendan Keenan in bold print reporting that a Mr. Robert Watt of Indecon addressed the annual Dublin economists' conference claiming that each peak time journey on the Luas costs the taxpayer around €6 even when the savings from fewer car journeys are counted. A claim was made that a dedicated busway could carry five times as many passengers as Luas.

Mr. Watt claims that there is insuffient demand to justify the metro from Swords via the Airport, but that housing and commercial development could take place to make it "competitive". There was not enough data to assess the value of major projects in Transport 21, most of which was not costed.

[Mark Gleeson]

Well the numbers for Metro to Swords indicate a profitable operation we don't have access to the detail but if it makes a profit and the independent assement was critical of under estimating demand its safe to say it will work and companies have lined up to build it at there risk so clearly its not a what some may say. Metro West now is a different kettle of fish

The problem Platform 11 had with the metro was that it wasn't specified to cope with demand, put simply it could carry heaps more with better integration. Whats on the table now vindicates the position

For confidentally reasons I won't give numbers but Luas at the moment makes a pile of money and if they bothered to sort out revenue protection they would make a heap more.

Now the capital cost was written off on Luas (792 million less an unknown EU grant for the Red Line), while the DART is still lumped with a loan CIE where forced to take out when the DoF pocketed the EEC funds CIE was to get

[weehamster]

From http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/

EACH peak-time journey on Dublin's Luas tramway costs the taxpayer around €6, even when the savings from fewer car journeys are counted, the annual Dublin economists' conference was told, writes Brendan Keenan.

Robert Wattt of Indecon said there were serious doubts as to whether any more Luas lines should be built, given their high costs and limited capacity.

It had been shown in other cities that dedicated busways could carry five times as many passengers as the Luas 6,000 per hour, while Metro and DART lines could carry over 50,000."At present, there is not enough demand to justify the Metro line to Swords and Dublin Airport," he said.

"But housing and commercial development could take place along the line to make it competitive. Luas does not have the capacity."

He said there was not enough data available to assess the value of major projects in the Government's Transport 21 plan, most of which was not costed in any case.

"We need to count the very considerable disruption costs during construction of projects like Luas," he said.

For crying out loud, why do "economists" always miss the point regarding public transport? The benefits outweigh the investment put into them. Its not there to make money (though it would be nice if they could).
If economists were the only ones in charge of public transport, trains and trams would not exist.

Inregards to the "Metro" North, are they aware that its not a real metro but a Tram that can extend to 90m when demand requires it.

[houstyl]

Originally Posted by weehamster

From http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/

For crying out loud, why do "economists" always miss the point regarding public transport? The benefits outweigh the investment put into them. Its not there to make money (though it would be nice if they could).
If economists were the only ones in charge of public transport, trains and trams would not exist.

Inregards to the "Metro" North, are they aware that its not a real metro but a Tram that can extend to 90m when demand requires it.

If that logic was followed then no-one would object to the WRC (for example) being built... there has to be some level of economic analysis of the costs and benefits of transport projects to ensure they aren't white elephants. He's dead right about the lack of information on Transport 21. All the same, I'm not sure where he's getting this 6 euro figure from, probably dividing passenger nos. into capital cost or some crude measure

[ACustomer]

It's plain wrong to say that economists advocate that urban public transport be commercially profitable. They may advocate that the social benefits exceed the social costs, which is an entirely different proposition.

The surplus of recurrent revenue over recurrent costs for LUAS is totally meaningless for at least three reasons: (i) the capital costs are ignored (OK they are water under the bridge for the 2 LUAS lines, but they must be taken into account for future projects); (ii) the construction costs take no account of disruption which can be huge in city-centre loactions; (iii) the indirect benefits, which are really tricky to measure properly, are not taken into account.

The real problem is with the civil servants, especially those in Finance, who have the outlook of small-town accountants, not with economists.

[Mark Gleeson]

Luas is self sufficent the current surplus situation is likely to be sufficent to cover mid life overhaul and large scale infrastructure renewals which you would expect on a 15-20 year cycle thats quite impressive

The major issue is that Luas is the write off of capital while the DART is still carrying a loan it should never have not forgetting IE get handed the entire CIE lending bill in 1987 leaving DB and BE debt free

Imagine this
Luas cost 792 million, that includes the EU grant
Carries say 24 million a year
Design life of the equipment is 30 years

Works out as 1.10 euro per passenger per journey

Now you can add inflation and interest rates into that to reveal the true cost and supprise supprise you probably get close to 6 euro. But that assumes the cost was paid from loans not directly out of tax income / surplus etc

Put simply
1. Luas is profitable for day to day costs and possibly mid life renewal
2. It makes a massive contribution to the city and its suburbs
3. Could we live without it, 2 years on probably not
4. All passenger projections have been surpassed

This is just another Sean Barrett style drive my car mise me fein approach. Maybe someone should study the double digit subvention on flights to regional airports

[Oisin88]

How much do we (the taxpayers) pay for every single occupied car journey. e.g. the cost to the health system of pedestrians that are run over, traffic gardai, traffic lights, road maintenance, pollution caused by car engine etc., the cost to the health system of stress, diabetes & blood pressure caused by the commuter sitting in their car.....

I think if the "independent" economist was to look into this and apply all the same logic to it, the results might be interesting.

It is worth noting that the Independent is not independent and is owned by big business and everything that is published in it may not be always independent of big business slant, which at present says "build more roads"

[houstyl]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

This is just another Sean Barrett style drive my car mise me fein approach. Maybe someone should study the double digit subvention on flights to regional airports

There is, http://www.esri.ie/pdf/QEC1003SA_Barrett.pdf , page 9. While you can argue the study was by Barrett himself, simple division reveals the inter-city railway subsidy to be higher per capita than the airline subsidy.