[Article] Department refuses to release data on metro

Mark Hennessy · 10-01-2006, 10:07

Department refuses to release data on metro
Frank McDonald

The Department of Transport has refused to release any information on the business case for the two metro lines proposed for Dublin in the Government's €34.4 billion Transport 21 investment programme.

After the programme was unveiled on November 1st last, there was such a paucity of detail that Irish Times reporter Mark Hennessy wrote: "Never in the history of public transport has so much been promised by so many ministers backed up by so little paperwork."

On November 2nd, The Irish Times submitted a request to the department under the Freedom of Information Act for documents dealing with the justification for and cost-benefit analysis of the metro plan - one of the most costly elements of the package.

It also sought information on why the proposed metro line linking the city centre was not to run southwards to Sandyford, as envisaged in 2001, as well as the reasons for not serving a large swathe of Dublin between Sandyford and Tallaght.

The request also covered the proposed Luas extensions, the rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock and the electrification of suburban services as well as the reopening of the western rail corridor between Ennis and Claremorris.

Of the 18 documents relevant to the metro and Luas extensions, 11 were not released and another was subject to deletions.

These related mainly to the "outline business case" prepared by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for both metro and Luas.

Also withheld by the department were letters exchanged between RPA chief executive Frank Allen and the department's secretary general, Julie O'Neill, and assistant secretary, Pat Mangan, on the Government's 10-year transport capital investment framework.

Another letter dealing with the "robustness" of the estimated costs of projects in the RPA's draft transport investment plan was also not released. Previously, the agency had been strongly criticised for wildly varying estimates of the cost of an airport metro line.

One of the reasons given by the department for denying access to most of the documents sought by The Irish Times was that the information was "commercially sensitive" and its disclosure "could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or gain".

Another reason given was that documents would "disclose positions taken, or to be taken, or plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be followed . . . for the purpose of any negotiations carried on or being carried on or on behalf of the Government or a public body".

The department also cited sections of the Freedom of Information Act which exempt disclosure of records that relate to the "ongoing deliberations" of a public body, or were "given by third parties in confidence" on the understanding that they would remain confidential.

The decision to withhold most of the information requested was made by Michael Hughes, of the department's Luas/metro division.

He said it would "not be in the public interest" to disclose the estimated costs of projects that would be the subject of a competitive tendering process.

Disclosure "may result in increased costs for the projects concerned at the expense of the public purse by prejudicing the RPA's negotiating position, which in turn could lead to delays in implementing these projects and delivering critically needed transport infrastructure".

Given the scale of the Transport 21 investment programme, The Irish Times will be appealing against Mr Hughes's decision in the public interest.

© The Irish Times

Mark Gleeson · 10-01-2006, 10:19

No surprises here the RPA have gone even further and have defined the business case as a exempted record and it is not available

Have a look at this
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/c...epsondence.pdf

The RPA might not want to release details but it is possible to determine an awful lot with a bit of research, we have the fare revenue and profit margin already worked out

Since the costs for everything else are available we will find out the cost of the metro in due course, current best guess is 6 billion

http://www.platfrom11.org/transport21/costs.php

If the RPA don't play along version two of this will appear http://www.platform11.org/reports/20...o_eng_eval.pdf and we all remember the fun we had with that

Its only a matter of time before someone leaks the information anyway, afterall the RPA leaked the Luas plans themselves on there own website

Kevin K Kelehan · 10-01-2006, 10:30

Put another way,

If the most optimistic passenger estimates are adopted i.e. 35% of Airport passengers (Schipol) and the Skerries or Malahide commuter rates in respect of all areas on the route in line with revenues equal to Luas per Kilometre fares what is the business case?

Mark Gleeson · 10-01-2006, 10:39

All the details are in the public domain it will just take time for someone to sit down and do the math

All you need is the DTO demand model and some fairly simple maths and one simple equation

Peak Demand = 4 * Off Peak

Based on that you can work out the annual numbers, fares are benchmarked against other transport so they are known, rolling stock costs are available staffing costs are reasonably well know.

If the RPA won't tell us simply ask the crew in Madrid how many staff they need and so on and adjust

What I can say is the business case is shaky as many of the assumptions are suspect but the demand numbers seem solid enough

Kevin K Kelehan · 10-01-2006, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

If the RPA won't tell us simply ask the crew in Madrid how many staff they need and so on and adjust

What I can say is the business case is shaky as many of the assumptions are suspect but the demand numbers seem solid enough

I don't see how staffing levels are 'comercially sensitive information' as presumably an operational contract would only arise subsequent to a 'design & Build contract' by a minimum of 3-4 years. The running costs are fundamental to the viability as the public have the right to know just how much subsidy if any will be required to cover the finance costs of the scheme.

As the DART to Greystones has shown percentage penetration levels do not mean that a line will be viable.

MrX · 10-01-2006, 14:38

In my opinion, none of it is commercially sensitive information. It's in the public interest that ALL publically financed projects are clearly layed out so that any member of the public and question and inspect how their hard earned tax euros are being spent.

Far too much information's hidden away here as sensitive when in fact it's just either civil service laziness e.g. perhaps such costings haven't actually been carried out at all or are very vague.

I would want a full legally water tight explanation as to how this is commercially sensitive information outlining the reasons for that decision.

The days when you can just go "because !" are long gone!

philip · 10-01-2006, 16:01

Well I'm gonna swim upstream on this and at least partially agree with the DoT. If I was building an extension I wouldn't tell the builder I expected it to cost €50k in case he was about to quote me €49k. Ok, it's not exactly the same but to a degree it is.

In any parliamentary democracy, you elect your government and then basically you trust them for the term of parliament to do what's in the best interests of the country. I know this is a very optimistic way of looking at what can be a bunch of rogues at the best of times but that's how it's supposed to work.

A nation is effectively a very large business that has to balance it's books like any other. No business would disclose publicly all of it's forecasts/projections etc. Only the minimum required by law is usually disclosed to the public.

I'm not saying everything the dept. is withholding should be withheld but I'm sure some of it should until a tenderer is locked into a contract.

I wonder did The Irish Times get anywhere on the WRC stuff. That would be more interesting than metro figures IMV.

Mark Gleeson · 10-01-2006, 16:18

The difference here is IE are more than happy to hand over the estimates for everything, I have in front of me the cost breakdown of every element of the DRP and its to the level of 1 * turnback platform Malahide ex Vat 35m inc Vat 40m. Its in the public domain, IE have been making it freely available for over a year

So if state agency A is handing out the costs to all comers and that work is to be done in the majority by contract, how come state agency B won't hand out the costs ?

There is a WRC report that IE got done which was made available to the McCann report authors, its contents are already well known so I guess Frank got it as he would have got everything from IE, there is nothing in the article to say he didn't

Its an open tendering system so you bid based on trying to win, the estimate is irrelevant but is the opening position, i.e. we are happy to pay that but you guys work it out. British Rail tried this approach only to have it pulled from under them by a classic piece of reporting, the car park watchers it got to a point where even the brand of the lever arch folders used to contain the bids for each company became public knowledge

10-01-2006, 10:07	#1
Mark Hennessy Membership Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Maynooth Posts: 1,116	[Article] Department refuses to release data on metro Department refuses to release data on metro Frank McDonald The Department of Transport has refused to release any information on the business case for the two metro lines proposed for Dublin in the Government's €34.4 billion Transport 21 investment programme. After the programme was unveiled on November 1st last, there was such a paucity of detail that Irish Times reporter Mark Hennessy wrote: "Never in the history of public transport has so much been promised by so many ministers backed up by so little paperwork." On November 2nd, The Irish Times submitted a request to the department under the Freedom of Information Act for documents dealing with the justification for and cost-benefit analysis of the metro plan - one of the most costly elements of the package. It also sought information on why the proposed metro line linking the city centre was not to run southwards to Sandyford, as envisaged in 2001, as well as the reasons for not serving a large swathe of Dublin between Sandyford and Tallaght. The request also covered the proposed Luas extensions, the rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock and the electrification of suburban services as well as the reopening of the western rail corridor between Ennis and Claremorris. Of the 18 documents relevant to the metro and Luas extensions, 11 were not released and another was subject to deletions. These related mainly to the "outline business case" prepared by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for both metro and Luas. Also withheld by the department were letters exchanged between RPA chief executive Frank Allen and the department's secretary general, Julie O'Neill, and assistant secretary, Pat Mangan, on the Government's 10-year transport capital investment framework. Another letter dealing with the "robustness" of the estimated costs of projects in the RPA's draft transport investment plan was also not released. Previously, the agency had been strongly criticised for wildly varying estimates of the cost of an airport metro line. One of the reasons given by the department for denying access to most of the documents sought by The Irish Times was that the information was "commercially sensitive" and its disclosure "could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or gain". Another reason given was that documents would "disclose positions taken, or to be taken, or plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be followed . . . for the purpose of any negotiations carried on or being carried on or on behalf of the Government or a public body". The department also cited sections of the Freedom of Information Act which exempt disclosure of records that relate to the "ongoing deliberations" of a public body, or were "given by third parties in confidence" on the understanding that they would remain confidential. The decision to withhold most of the information requested was made by Michael Hughes, of the department's Luas/metro division. He said it would "not be in the public interest" to disclose the estimated costs of projects that would be the subject of a competitive tendering process. Disclosure "may result in increased costs for the projects concerned at the expense of the public purse by prejudicing the RPA's negotiating position, which in turn could lead to delays in implementing these projects and delivering critically needed transport infrastructure". Given the scale of the Transport 21 investment programme, The Irish Times will be appealing against Mr Hughes's decision in the public interest. © The Irish Times

10-01-2006, 10:19	#2
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	No surprises here the RPA have gone even further and have defined the business case as a exempted record and it is not available Have a look at this http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/c...epsondence.pdf The RPA might not want to release details but it is possible to determine an awful lot with a bit of research, we have the fare revenue and profit margin already worked out Since the costs for everything else are available we will find out the cost of the metro in due course, current best guess is 6 billion http://www.platfrom11.org/transport21/costs.php If the RPA don't play along version two of this will appear http://www.platform11.org/reports/20...o_eng_eval.pdf and we all remember the fun we had with that Its only a matter of time before someone leaks the information anyway, afterall the RPA leaked the Luas plans themselves on there own website Last edited by Mark Gleeson : 10-01-2006 at 10:22.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-01-2006, 10:30	#3
Kevin K Kelehan Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: West Tower Posts: 355	Put another way, If the most optimistic passenger estimates are adopted i.e. 35% of Airport passengers (Schipol) and the Skerries or Malahide commuter rates in respect of all areas on the route in line with revenues equal to Luas per Kilometre fares what is the business case?

10-01-2006, 10:39	#4
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	All the details are in the public domain it will just take time for someone to sit down and do the math All you need is the DTO demand model and some fairly simple maths and one simple equation Peak Demand = 4 * Off Peak Based on that you can work out the annual numbers, fares are benchmarked against other transport so they are known, rolling stock costs are available staffing costs are reasonably well know. If the RPA won't tell us simply ask the crew in Madrid how many staff they need and so on and adjust What I can say is the business case is shaky as many of the assumptions are suspect but the demand numbers seem solid enough

10-01-2006, 14:38	#6
MrX Really Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 585	In my opinion, none of it is commercially sensitive information. It's in the public interest that ALL publically financed projects are clearly layed out so that any member of the public and question and inspect how their hard earned tax euros are being spent. Far too much information's hidden away here as sensitive when in fact it's just either civil service laziness e.g. perhaps such costings haven't actually been carried out at all or are very vague. I would want a full legally water tight explanation as to how this is commercially sensitive information outlining the reasons for that decision. The days when you can just go "because !" are long gone!

10-01-2006, 16:01	#7
philip Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 632	Well I'm gonna swim upstream on this and at least partially agree with the DoT. If I was building an extension I wouldn't tell the builder I expected it to cost €50k in case he was about to quote me €49k. Ok, it's not exactly the same but to a degree it is. In any parliamentary democracy, you elect your government and then basically you trust them for the term of parliament to do what's in the best interests of the country. I know this is a very optimistic way of looking at what can be a bunch of rogues at the best of times but that's how it's supposed to work. A nation is effectively a very large business that has to balance it's books like any other. No business would disclose publicly all of it's forecasts/projections etc. Only the minimum required by law is usually disclosed to the public. I'm not saying everything the dept. is withholding should be withheld but I'm sure some of it should until a tenderer is locked into a contract. I wonder did The Irish Times get anywhere on the WRC stuff. That would be more interesting than metro figures IMV.

10-01-2006, 16:18	#8
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	The difference here is IE are more than happy to hand over the estimates for everything, I have in front of me the cost breakdown of every element of the DRP and its to the level of 1 * turnback platform Malahide ex Vat 35m inc Vat 40m. Its in the public domain, IE have been making it freely available for over a year So if state agency A is handing out the costs to all comers and that work is to be done in the majority by contract, how come state agency B won't hand out the costs ? There is a WRC report that IE got done which was made available to the McCann report authors, its contents are already well known so I guess Frank got it as he would have got everything from IE, there is nothing in the article to say he didn't Its an open tendering system so you bid based on trying to win, the estimate is irrelevant but is the opening position, i.e. we are happy to pay that but you guys work it out. British Rail tried this approach only to have it pulled from under them by a classic piece of reporting, the car park watchers it got to a point where even the brand of the lever arch folders used to contain the bids for each company became public knowledge