Scoping study published - insufficient funds for Navan

[Thomas J Stamp]

bikering and stalking..... sums us up sometimes i suppose.

[ThomasJ]

ah i see.... forgive me for asking a stupid question

[losexpectation]

Rail Services Between Navan And Dublin is Financially Viable
Meath Chronicle
Editorial 19/01/2008

THE extraordinary confusion sowed by Iarnrod Eireann (Irish Rail) last week concerning the viability of reopening passenger rail services between Navan and Dublin has taken a further twist this week as it has been revealed that the senior manager who told Meath County Councillors the route was not financially viable has been removed from his post.
Transport 21 project manager with Iarnrod Eireann, Tom Finn, has been removed from his post following controversial comments made to Meath County Councillors last week about the planned rail line between Navan and Dunboyne not being economically viable and that "financially, you would not touch it with a barge pole because of the costs". The remarks are understood to have infuriated senior management at the State rail company.

http://www.meathchronicle.ie/story.a...&cid=128&cid2=

don't see any mention of this here

should this guy have chosen his words more carefully

[Mark Hennessy]

Interesting, you can be sure he wasn't towing the higher political line thats for sure.

The rail line may not be economically viable but it looks good as a colour crayon on an election manifesto.

[Navan Junction]

No, the report said it was economically viable.

His comments referred to financial viability as the build costs would not be recouped from revenue even though revenue would cover the annualised running costs. Has the Luas repaid it's costs or were the new intercity trains paid for out of annual revenue?

The financial viability vs economic viability seems to be standard in all reports about rail projects, check a few or ask Mark

To be honest, I'd have thought the comments about the Transport 21 budget being insufficient might have caused more ructions as that would have had implications on a national level

Either way, there you have it. It must be a big blow to the guy himself

[Mark Hennessy]

Sorry NJ about the ecomonic criteria. My main implication is that whatever he said wasn't what the man at the top needed to hear about a rail line on his patch.

It is typical of the political culture here about that someone who actually says something straight and direct (and maybe even the truth) is forced off the stage.

[Navan Junction]

Not to worry Mark. The whole thing has been a pain, and the irony of the situation is that it wasn't a negative report as such. The best sound bytes were the negative ones unfortunately.

As these things go with the finance-babble of financial vs economic, it was quite good esp from the ridership perspective.

Its just been a pain in the ass that a casual remark or two has put in train a series of events which have managed to give the impression that it is a pet political project, which history shows it is not. And frankly, it would be so much easier to push for if it was a pet political project.

There was a history of broken promises on the mot site which showed that this could not be the case - the railway is only being looked at way after every other project has been advanced. The campaign for passenger rail services to Navan goes back to 1981!

I really do think it a strong possibility that the Transport 21 funding comment that led to this, and yes I'd imagine that it was politically inconvienient. Noel Dempsey has been taking flak over the non delivery of the railway for years in his own backyard so I'd imagine that whatever led to this, it had more likely than not more to do with the bigger picture of Transport 21 than Meath

[Mark Gleeson]

It is important to get some facts down

Tom Finn is correct in stating he wouldn't touch it with a barge poll (though we should wait for the actually agreed minutes of that meeting to actually prove he said that). The project is not profitable and there is a onus on Irish Rail not to engage in any activity which will further increase the loss unless the DOT agree to cover the difference

In the words of Dick Fearn CEO IE, anything is profitable given a large enough subsidy. Everyone knew it was going to make a loss

The 4.6% return is very shaky and doesn't stand up to aggressive evalaution, a slight reduction in demand over the estimates puts it in trouble. The other rail projects are 10-12% return

The cost of the line in either 2007 or 2015 prices is more or less exactly what informed observers where expecting, everyone is running around in panic as if it was some class of surprise

And let us not forget Transport 21 contains roughly 2 billion to cover for cost increases due to inflation etc over the 10 year window

As is always the case in Navan the whole thing hangs on Meath CC, will they raise the 25% will they actually get the zoning sorted out. When will they seek authorisation to move that damn sewer main

[Navan Junction]

I agree with you re MCC, particularly on the levies. They have to actively facilitate this project.

The levy element of the study was based on the 1km model for Dunboyne which obviously would not work on the section between Navan and Pace as they would yield very very little.

For example the huge development planned for east Navan would be well outside that as would many south Navan developments.

MCC need to play ball on this, but not hard ball

Just reiterate the study was based on 85% of projected population growth - Meath has a long history in recent times of well exceeding these projections. In addition that study was based on northern line comparisons where much of the line is backed against the sea

[losexpectation]

So the meath editorial headline is wrong...

I still ask if the Navan rail line isn't financialy viable which commuter line would be???

[Mark Gleeson]

There is a difference between financially and economically viable

Financially relates to the costs at company level, as in not viable need more subsidy
Economically refers to the country on a whole

You can't show economic and social benefits in the accounts.

[losexpectation]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

There is a difference between financially and economically viable

Financially relates to the costs at company level, as in not viable need more subsidy
Economically refers to the country on a whole

You can't show economic and social benefits in the accounts.

I know that.

So the meath editorial headline is wrong...

I still ask if the Navan rail line isn't financialy viable which commuter line would be???

[Navan Junction]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

There is a difference between financially and economically viable

Financially relates to the costs at company level, as in not viable need more subsidy.

Yes. But the line is being paid for by central government through Transport 21and MCC levies. When the line is built, only then will the day to day running costs and depreciation be costed to IÉ.

The report says that over a 30 period revenue will cover the lines running costs, though possibly not depreciation.

Assuming that IÉ aren't footing the bill for the line's construction (which they won't anyway and never were going to) then their cost base relates to running and depreciation.

The question is then is it fair to say that all lines around the country meet their annualised running costs and depreciation costs?

Because if they don't, then is the Navan line really that different to them?

Slightly different question - how many lines in the country actually even meet their annualised running costs, never mind depreciation costs?

[Mark Gleeson]

If you ignore depreciation the Dublin Suburban devision is 5 million in the black, given the young age profile of the trains depreciation hurts badly.

For several years in the early 90's the DART was fully profitable even accounting for depreciation

Dublin Cork is said to be profitable

[Derek Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

Not to worry Mark. The whole thing has been a pain, and the irony of the situation is that it wasn't a negative report as such. The best sound bytes were the negative ones unfortunately.

As these things go with the finance-babble of financial vs economic, it was quite good esp from the ridership perspective.

Its just been a pain in the ass that a casual remark or two has put in train a series of events which have managed to give the impression that it is a pet political project, which history shows it is not. And frankly, it would be so much easier to push for if it was a pet political project.

There was a history of broken promises on the mot site which showed that this could not be the case - the railway is only being looked at way after every other project has been advanced. The campaign for passenger rail services to Navan goes back to 1981!

I really do think it a strong possibility that the Transport 21 funding comment that led to this, and yes I'd imagine that it was politically inconvienient. Noel Dempsey has been taking flak over the non delivery of the railway for years in his own backyard so I'd imagine that whatever led to this, it had more likely than not more to do with the bigger picture of Transport 21 than Meath

Sorry NJ, I have to take issue with some of what you say there.

The Navan railway is becoming very political and very quickly. Its background in terms of promises and financial/economic viability is very similar if not identical to the WRC. It may not be a "pet political project" just yet, but the evidence on display would suggest its getting there. The only thing seperating it from the WRC is cost.

I agree with Tom Finn's comments regarding funding. (and its not often I agree with someone in IE) If the man has actually been demoted because of his comments, then it was no doubt coming from a political agenda. Remember we are not talking about the "bigger" picture of T21. We are talking about the rail investment side of T21. I believe that Tom Finn is referring to that. So removing him from his position due to his comments firmly sails the Navan rail project into the very murky waters of the political sea. There is no doubt about it.

Furthermore, demoting a man for saying this, while the same man and many of his colleagues have poured many doubts on more "economically viable" projects like the PPT, Sunday services through it from Kildare etc etc, strikes me as an act that was deemed by the DOT as too close to the political bone.

Its a Meath thing. Just like the the WRC was a western thing. I bet my ass that had Tom Finn said something similar about the interconnector, then he'd still be pushing the T21 buttons in IE and the DOT wouldn't give a toss.

[Navan Junction]

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

The Navan railway is becoming very political and very quickly.

Ok, I hear ye on that. I've always given out that politics shouldn't have a place in infrastructure provision. (At least not in the Jackie Healy-Rae Kerry tarmacing manner).

But even if it does get the nod doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Kick the politics if that happens, not the project

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

Its background in terms of promises and financial/economic viability is very similar if not identical to the WRC.

Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. Look at the only facts we have, from this report. 5,300 each way not including passengers from Pace and Dunboyne.

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

Furthermore, demoting a man for saying this, while the same man and many of his colleagues have poured many doubts on more "economically viable" projects like the PPT, Sunday services through it from Kildare etc etc, strikes me as an act that was deemed by the DOT as too close to the political bone.

Again fair enough. PPT, Kildare on Sundays etc. But you have to remember that Navan became "subject to further studies" on the IÉ website ages ago and Dick Fearn commented that the line "could be extended to Navan eventually" in a railway magazine in 2006 and no hackles were raised.

I really think the issue was publicising the cost of a Transport 21 project, saying that there was insufficient funding and also saying that a project that IÉ would not be footing the bill for was not financially viable.

By giving out the T21 figure (through deduction), by saying the T21 budget was inadaquate and innaccurate and by being seen to have taken a decision which really rested with the Department of Transport was the problem.

I disagree with you that it is a Meath thing. The levy issue is a Meath County Council thing, the Minister is from Meath but the Transport 21 thing in relation to hidden costings is a nationwide matter which just happened to come to a head in Meath.

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

By giving out the T21 figure (through deduction), by saying the T21 budget was inadaquate and innaccurate

Well this is one of the points I've been making since T21 launched. There is no publicly available list of projects, timetables, costs or specifications. It is:

"Railway to Navan" instead of:

"Railway to Navan, double track with stations at ..........; park & ride at ........: to commence construction in ..... and to open to the public in .....; operations with diesel railcars"

[Navan Junction]

Bingo.

Now apply that to every project in T21 and now you have the problem

It wasn't the boot into Navan. It was the boot into Transport 21

[Derek Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

Bingo.

Now apply that to every project in T21 and now you have the problem

It wasn't the boot into Navan. It was the boot into Transport 21

Tom Finn only looked after IE projects within T21. So lets not concern ourselves with the bigger picture for now.I guess your crapping yourself in case Finn lost his job over Navan. If he did (and it looks like that according to media reports) then the Navan project is well and truly shrouded in political muck. IEs statement on the matter, which ran in yesterdays Sunday Indo, is yet more evidence. It reads like a DOT rep stood over Barry Kennys head with a gun. Here it is in all its glory.

Iarnrod Eireann's scoping study and our presentation to Meath County Council, both stated that the Navan to Dunboyne line is economically viable - this is the only criteria that matters when evaluating transport projects, be they rail, road or other public transport.
Iarnrod Eireann's study therefore supports the development of the Navan line. The key issue for all such projects is that the economic benefits - in terms of time saving for citizens, reduced congestion, environmental benefits and reduced road accidents amongst others - justify the investment.
Our consultants report clearly states that the Navan rail line development meets and exceeds the Department of Finance's criteria in this regard, and that it is an economically viable project, as advised to Meath County Council last week.
As stated to the council at last weeks meeting, Iarnrod Eireann intends to progress this Transport 21 project with the Department of Transport and to develop the full preliminary design and business case in accordance with the processes for new capital projects.

Finn wasn't available for comment and was said to be on annual leave.

Now most here know that I am a huge advocater of the Navan line. I havent changed my mind. But if it becomes a political hot potatoe, I believe that it can turn into another WRC. Its just another symptom of political interference screwing up the order and merit of rail projects. If that continues to gain momentum, then Navan will develop many enemies. Remember its getting a new motorway. Combined with a railway, we could be looking at a total investment of nearly 1 billion on what is a very short corridor. If that even remotely looks like happening at the expense of another project in the GDA, then there may be a public backlash. We need more clarity from Government and not empty statements. The Tom Finn situation is very alarming. He may know more than we give him credit for and he may have paid the price.

[Colm Moore]

Minister was in Navan today, launching a bus service that started on 16December 2007. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055201420

Originally Posted by Navan Junction

Now apply that to every project in T21 and now you have the problem

Or the solution.