2030RailNetworkStrategyReview_21

8/2/2019 2030RailNetworkStrategyReview_21

1/150


2/15081

7.1 IntroductionA key requirement of the Review is a forecastof demand for rail passenger services. This wasbased, in part, on the network transport demandmodel developed by the consultants, as outlinedin Section 5. In using this model to forecast rail

passenger demand, detailed area-based forecastsof the population and jobs are needed to projectwhere people will live and work. These area-basedforecasts were derived so as to ensure that whenaggregated they were compatible with nationalpopulation projections as set out below. A fullexposition of the area demographic forecastingmodel is contained in a Technical Paper that isavailable on request.17The focus of this Section of the Review is on explaining the provenance of thenational population projections that were used.

While the network transport demand modelprovides bottom-up forecasts, it was necessaryto supplement this with a forecast of aggregatedemand for rail services that would be sensitiveto economic growth prospects. A time seriesdemand model was devised for this purpose. Theforecasts for rail passenger demand that emergedwere derived from the network demand modeladjusted so that the forecast demand for travel onthe network as a whole summed to that forecastby the aggregate demand model. This Section of the Review also outlines the results of the demandforecasting process.

7.2. Demographic EnvironmentThere have been a number of of cial populationprojections published in the past number of years.In April 2008, the CSO published their nationalpopulation projections for 2011-2041 based on the2006 census18. On foot of this, they released the

regional population projections for 2011-2026 inDecember 2008. In January 2009, the DEHLG issuedthe national and regional population projections for2010-202219. The revised gures by the DEHLG takeaccount of the regional population projections bythe CSO and update that Departments gures rstissued in 2007. In addition, in May 2008, the ESRIMedium Term Review20 outlined the demographicstructure of the population up to 2020 enablingpopulation estimates to be inferred for the period.21

The population projections made by theseauthorities are based on assumptions about fertility(F) and migration (M). The DEHLG and the ESRImade a single projection while the CSO madeseveral projections with different assumptions forfertility and migration. The most critical assumptionis that relating to migration.

Whilst recognising the uncertainty regardingfuture migration ows, the CSO identi es two mainscenarios for net migration. Firstly, they proposethat immigration will continue at a high level beforemoderating in the longer term. They suggestnet immigration of over 60,000 per annum in the2006-2011 period, moderating to over 30,000 perannum from 2021 onwards. This forecast is referredto as M1. Secondly, they propose immigration tocontinue at levels that are more moderate with netimmigration of 50,000 per annum in the 2006-2011

period, before levelling off at 10,000 per annumfrom 2021 onwards. This forecast is referred to asM2. The CSO also include projections based onzero net migration (M0), which assumes in ows of 20,000 per annum being offset by equivalent annualout ows.

The CSO have introduced two new projectionsbased on zero net migration, F1M0 and F2M0.These projections are signi cantly lower than

17 Goodbody/Aecom. Technical Paper 1: Demographic and Economic Context. 2010.18 CSO Population and Labour Force Projections 2011-2041, April 200819 Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, National Population Projections and Regional Population Targets 2010-2022, January 2009.20 ESRI Medium Term Review 2008-2020 May 200821 At present, neither the CSO nor the DEHLG are expected to revise their national population projections. The CSOs next projections will be published following the

2011 Census. The DEHLG has indicated that no national population projections are envisaged at this time


3/15082

either the DEHLG or the CSO F1M1. The bulk of this difference stems from the zero net migrationassumed by the CSO. These estimates are alsolower than the ESRI estimates up to 2020. In 2020,the ESRI estimates are over 400,000 higher than theCSO M0 estimates. Thus, the CSO M0 projectionsnow look the most realistic.

The Department of Transport requires the RPA andthe CIE group of companies to provide BusinessCases in respect of proposed investment projects.The Department is concerned that the populationprojections underlying the Business Cases may nolonger be valid. The Department has addressedthis problem by requiring a set of sensitivity tests,

based on different projected populations. However,their central population assumption is a ModerateGrowth Scenario This scenario is broadly in linewith CSO F1M0 scenario. A scenario consistent withF1M0 traditional is favoured whereby nationalpopulation is projected to increase from 4.233m in2006 to 4.766m in 2021.22

The F1M0 projection is based on the 2006population and implicitly assumes large outmigration over the period to offset the netimmigration experienced in 2007 and 2008.Consequently, the F1M0 projections are the mostrealistic medium growth scenario over the period.

22 This assumes fertility rates remain at the 2006 level of 1.90.

Table 7.1: Population Projections 2006 - 2025 (CSO and DEHLG)

DEHLG Low CSO F1M2 CSO F2M0 CSO F1M0 ESRI2006 4,232,900 4,232,900 4,232,900 4,232,900 4,232,9002010 4,584,900 4,591,784 4,378,406 4,383,782 4,532,5292015 4,928,317 5,011,233 4,540,306 4,571,520 4,833,1372020 5,299,560 5,380,125 4,665,605 4,735,460 5,172,4022025 5,708,124 5,649,728 4,756,111 4,861,6612030 6,164,713* 5,862,198 4,818,998 4,958,884

Source: CSO Population Projections 2008; ESRI Medium Term Review 2008; Dept of Environment 2009.

Dept of Environment population targets extend to 2022. Figures for 2025 and 2030 were obtained by applying the equivalent 5 year growth ratefor the 2016-2022 period.


4/15083

Table 7.2: National Population Projections2006-2030

F1M02006 4,232,9292010 4,383,782

2015 4,571,5202020 4,735,4602025 4,861,6612030 4,958,884

Source: CSO

The table shows that the population is projected togrow by approximately 575,000 from 2010 to 2030.This corresponds to an annual average growth rateof 0.6 per cent. Examining the previous 20 yearsfrom 1990 to 2010 the annual average growth ratein the population was 1.1 per cent. The fall in theaverage annual growth rate is largely the result of falling immigration.

Based on demographic area based modelling, thecurrent and projected distribution of the populationis summarised in Figures 7.1 and 7.2.


5/15084

Figure 7.1: Population Projections by DED 2006


6/15085

Figure 7.2: Population Projections by DED 2030


7/15086

The population projections were also used todetermine projections of the labour force and jobs.The CSO Labour Force Projections are completedup to 2021. Consequently in order to obtain

gures up to 2030, the assumptions for 2016-2021period were extended for the next 10 years to 2031.Interpolation was subsequently required for 20102015 2020 2025 and 2030 projections. Employmentnumbers are derived from the Labour Forceapplying unemployment rates. Unemploymentis assumed to peak at 14 per cent and declinegradually from 2014 to 5 per cent by 2025. From2025-2030 the unemployment rate is expectedto stabilise at 5 per cent. The growth rate in theEmployment Projections is equivalent to the growthin job numbers nationally and is used to in ate DED job numbers over the projection period.

The Population and Labour Force Projections arepresented in Table 7.3 below. The projections showthat the labour force is projected to grow by 10 percent between 2010 and 2030. This corresponds toan annual average growth rate of 0.5 per cent. Overthe same period the population of working age isexpected to grow by 5 per cent.

Table 7.3: Population & Labour Force Projections2006 -2030

Population Labour Force2006 4,232,929 2,118,2622010 4,383,782 2,188,2712015 4,571,520 2,250,1712020 4,735,460 2,299,7792025 4,861,661 2,348,7992030 4,958,884 2,398,864

Source: AECOM

7.3 Economic EnvironmentIrelands economy is currently suffering fromthe combined effects of a world wide economicslowdown and a huge adjustment in the nationalproperty and nancial markets. After experiencingover ten years of unprecedented growth, our

economic fortunes changed dramatically in 2008.The economy shrank by 2.8 per cent in 2008 and bya further 11.3 per cent in 2009, before stabilising in2010. GNP has fallen a total of approximately 15 percent from its peak.

Irelands economic growth in the periodimmediately prior to 2008 was fuelled by easilyavailable, cheap credit being used to buy land andbuildings in Ireland. Debt levels and property pricesreached unsustainable levels. This fragile growthcame to a sudden end in 2008. Since then, a viciouscycle of falling property prices and huge lossesof capital in the banking system have led to thecurrent recession.


8/15087

This change in fortunes has had seriousnegative effects on welfare and public nances.Unemployment was consistently low during theyears of economic growth. It has recently grownsharply and reached 14.7 per cent in March 2011.

The sudden reduction in taxation revenues andincrease in social welfare spending as a result of this recession put severe pressure on the public

nances. Government nances have transformedfrom an extremely healthy stage where an excessof receipts over current spending was beinginvested in capital spending, to a situation whereGovernment spending was well in excess of receipts. Despite decisive action to curtail spendingand raise taxes, government spending will exceedrevenue by an amount equal to 11.6 per cent

of GDP for 2010. At the time of writing, a fouryear plan for national recovery has been devisedencompassing severe restraints on Governmentspending and on the imposition of additional taxrevenue raising measures.

However, Irelands economy still has the potentialfor substantial growth in the longer term period,which is relevant to this Review. The long termgrowth potential of the economy is determined bythe rate of growth in labour productivity and theincrease in the labour force. Taken together, thesetwo factors indicate a potential GDP growth rate of some 3 per cent in the long term. The ESRI is alsoof the view that the recovery will take some time tohave effect, that so the near term projections arefor growth rates at a lower level.23

23 During the course of the preparation of this Review, Irelands economic performance and short term prospects were continually being revised downward and policyinitiatives to redress the Exchequer imbalances were ongoing. Given the long time horizon for the review, the consultants took the view that establishing the long termgrowth paths was the prime concern and that further economic decline in the short term would simply mean postponement of given passenger demand levels for anumber of years.

Figure 7.3: GNP Growth in Ireland 2000-2010

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Source: CSO

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20092010


9/15088

7.4 Energy Environment7.4.1 World Oil Prices

By late 2010, oil costs between $70 and $80 perbarrel. At the beginning of 2009, oil prices were$40 per barrel as the onset of the global nancial

crisis curbed oil demand. In early 2008, prices hadcrossed the symbolic $100 per barrel threshold andreached a peak of just under $150 per barrel in Julyof that year.

Oil prices are determined by four broadfactors: non-OPEC conventional liquids supply;OPEC investment and production decisions;unconventional liquids supply; and world liquidsdemand. Since 2009, world oil prices have beenespecially sensitive to demand expectations, withproducers, consumers and traders looking for anyindication of a possible recovery in the worldseconomy and a likely corresponding increase in oildemand. In addition, several factors are contributingto a lack of investment in exploration andproduction projects. For example, severe problemsin the global credit market that began in 2008 havemade it dif cult to nance some projects. The fullextent of the limits of credit availability for oil supplyprojects will not be fully realised for some time,as projects stalled due to lack of nancing wouldnot have brought supply to the market for severalyears. Equally, the oil price slump experienced inAugust 2008 saw the delay in the commencementof oil projects, some of which have yet to be revived.Because there is a time lag between investmentdecisions and oil coming to the market, mediumterm supply growth may be constrained if delayedprojects are not restarted in the short term. Thedecline in factor costs (cost of materials, labour andequipment) which commenced in 2008 have alsoencouraged delays in some projects as investors

play a wait and see game in order to securecontracts at the lowest possible price.

It remains unclear how the worlds economy and thedemand for liquids will recover, and what non-OPECresources will be brought to the market and whatproduction targets OPEC will set or meet. Equally,in a climate of volatile oil prices, there is uncertaintyaround whether or when individual unconventionalliquid projects will come on line. As a result of thisuncertainty, the EIA in preparing oil price forecasts,have developed a broad range of scenarios, witha differential of $160 per barrel (in real terms)between their High and Low Oil Price forecasts for2035.

As part of their reference forecasts (which assumesthat current practices, politics, and levels of accesswill continue in the near to mid-term and longterms developments will be determined largelyby economics) world oil prices (low-sulphur, lightcrude oil delivered to Cushing Oklahoma) will reach$95 per barrel in 2015 and $133 per barrel in 2035.According to the Low Oil Price scenario, 2035 oilprices will stabilise at $51 per barrel, compared to$210 per barrel in the High Oil Price scenario. Inthe High Price scenario conventional productionis restricted by political decisions and economicaccess to resources: use of quotas, scal regimes,and various degrees of access restrictions by major

producing countries, whilst consuming countriesincreasingly turn to high cost unconventionalliquids to satisfy demand. The Low Oil Pricescenario depicts a situation where non-OPECproducing countries develop stable scal policiesand investment regimes directed at encouragingdevelopment of their resources, to increase theirmarket share of total liquids of 50 per cent in 2035,up from 42 per cent in 2008. Table 7.4 sets out EIAforecast oil prices to 2035.


10/15089

Table 7.4: EIA Forecast Oil Prices (2008 dollarsper barrel)

Reference High Low$ $ $

2008 99.6 99.6 99.62015 94.5 144.8 51.62035 133.2 209.6 51.4

Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2010, EIA

7.4.2 Future Oil Prices in Ireland

Ireland imports all of its oil requirements eitherin the form of crude oil (into Whitegate re nery)or as nished re ned products such as petrol anddiesel. The total market for oil in Ireland is about0.2 per cent of the world total. As such, Ireland isa price taker in the world market for oil. The pricesconsumers pay for petrol and diesel in Irelanddepends on a number of factors including: worldcrude oil prices; re nery prices; exchange rates;government taxes; inventories; transportation costs;competition in the retail market and companymargins etc.

As part of a report completed by the NationalCompetition Authority24 in 2008, it was found that

government taxes and levies accounted for 69per cent and 54 per cent of the pump prices of petrol and diesel respectively. The actual cost of the re ned petrol and diesel products made up 26per cent and 37 per cent of the nal pump pricesrespectively. (The remainder was accounted for byinland delivery charges, credit and pro t marginsfor wholesalers/distributors/retailers). BecauseIreland imports all its oil requirements and owingto the fact that oil is traded in US dollars, there is

the potential for changes in world oil prices (bothupwards and downwards) to be offset in Irelandby corresponding movements in the dollar/euroexchange rate.

This was seen in 2008, when between March andSeptember 2008 world crude oil prices fell by 24per cent and the corresponding ex-re nery pricesfell by 22 per cent. When account was taken formovements in the euro/dollar exchange rate overthat period, there was a 14 per cent fall in the eurovalue of the re ned products imported into Ireland.Applying the 14 per cent reduction in re nery pricesto Irish pump prices resulted in a 5.6 per cent fallin prices, because government taxes make up sucha large proportion of the overall pump price. Thefact that government taxes and levies account forapproximately 60 per cent of the price of transportfuel at the pump, means changes in the price of crude oil, and re ned oil, have a proportionallysmaller effect on prices at the pump.

Under the high scenario, oil prices could doubleby 2035. This would give rise to an increase in fuelprices at the pump of some 30 per cent. Researchsuggests that road traf c elasticity with respectto fuel prices is of the order of 0.12.25 This meansthat road traf c volumes would decrease by some3.6 per cent. Based on an estimated road vehiclekilometres of travel in 2008 of 31.2bn, this indicates

a diminution in traf c of some 1.1bn. Assuming acar occupancy of 1.5, this amounts to about 1.7bnpassenger kilometres or somewhat less than thecurrent passenger kilometres on the whole railsystem of 2bn.

The key question is the extent to which the roadtravel would divert to rail. This depends on thecross price elasticity of rail travel with respect tofuel prices. The estimates in the literature for this

24 Investigation into Petrol and Diesel Price Movements, December 200825 The Impact of Fuel Prices on Traf c and Fuel Consumption in Ireland. Goodbody Economic Consultants. 2009


11/15090

cross price elasticity generally lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.4. This is a large range re ecting the factthat the cross price elasticity is sensitive to the railmodal share. Using this range and a current ICNpatronage of 21m passengers suggest a transfer torail of between 630,000 and 2,500,000 passengersor between 3 and 12 per cent of existing annualpatronage levels. These estimates albeit crudesuggest that a doubling of oil prices could addat most some 10 per cent to ICCN patronage byc.2030. If an increase in oil prices of some 33 percent were to occur, then prices at the pump wouldincrease by some 10 per cent and the equivalentboost to rail patronage would be of the order of 1to 4 per cent.

7.5 Competition from Road

The improvement in the National Road Networkover the period to 2010 has been signi cant. The

Major Inter-Urbans are approaching completion,and the development of the Atlantic corridor isunderway. Both programmes remain governmentpriorities in the revised Capital SpendingProgramme. The status of key road corridors andtheir relationship to main rail routes is outlined inTable 7.5 below.

It is evident, therefore, that the road networkcontinues to improve and will present furtherchallenges for the rail network. The time advantageof rail has effectively been completely erodedalong the inter-urban routes, with time savingsnow only achievable in urban areas. Followingthe completion of the current programme of roadworks by 2011, road is expected to give rise tolimited additional competition with rail beyond thatwhich currently exists.

Table 7.5: Summary Key Road Corridors

Route Road Status Tolls Notes

Dublin Rosslare EP N11 Dual Carriageway M50 to Rathnew,and bypassing Arklow/Gorey NoneLimited furtherimprovementsexpected by2016

Dublin Sligo N4Dual Carriageway M50 to Mullingar,with further improvements at planningstage

En eld

Dublin Waterford M9 Dual Carriageway Standards Completedin late 2010 None

Dublin Belfast M1 Dual Carriageway Standard along fullcorridor Drogheda

Dublin Cork M8 Dual Carriageway Standard along fullcorridorPortlaoise,Fermoy


12/15091

7.6 Competition from the Bus Mode7.6.1 Introduction

This section considers the level of competition forrail services arising from the bus mode. In practice,

this competition emanates from Bus EireannsExpressway services and private operators. BusEireann also operates regional services that, byvirtue of their location, offer less competition to therail mode.

Route Road Status Tolls Notes

Dublin Tralee M7,N21Dual Carriageway M50 to Limerick, lowquality thereafter Portlaoise

Improvementsto N21currentlyat planningstage.

Dublin Limerick M7Dual Carriageway Standard completedlate 2010 Portlaoise

Dublin Galway M6 Dual Carriageway Standard along fullcorridorEn eld,Ballinasloe

Dublin WestportBallina N5

Dual Carriageway M50 to Ballinalack,with further improvements at planningstage

En eld

Limerick Jct RosslareEP

N24/ N25 Local improvements only None

Limerick Ballybrophy N7 Dual Carriageway along full length None

Galway Limerick N18 Dual Carriageway Limerick to Ennis,completed 2010 None


13/15092

7.6.2 Level of Service

In terms of service levels, the bulk of thecompetition arises from Expressway services.Private services are less prevalent due largely to arestrictive licensing scheme that has been operatedsince the Road Transport Act 1932. However, privatesector competition has emerged on some routes,most notably the Dublin-Galway route (see Table7.6).

Private Bus Operators have dramatically increasedtheir level of service on the non-stop routes thathave shorter journey times. For example, Iarnrdireann offer 10 services a day (8 direct and 2

indirect) on the Dublin-Galway route. Bus Eireannhave a total of 15 services daily, six of whichhave 6-stops only and nine which are multi-stop. However, the competition from Private Busoperators is even more intense with Citylink andGoBus between them offering 42 services daily,26 of which are non-stop. Competition from BusEireann and Private Bus operators is also strong onthe shorter mainline routes where Iarnrd ireannhas less journey time to exploit its competitiveadvantage. For instance, Iarnrd ireann operates8 services a day on the Dublin-Belfast routecompared to 22 for Ulsterbus / Goldline and it runs5 services on the Dublin-Wexford route comparedto 8 for Wexford Bus.

Table 7.6: Comparison of Travel Modes by Service Frequency (per day)

Iarnrd ireann Bus Eireann Private BusOperatorsFrom Dublin to: Direct IndirectCork 14 1 6 7Belfast 8 22 22Galway: Limited-Stop 8 2 6 26Multi-Stop 9 16Limerick 3 13 13 8Waterford 8 9 12

Tralee 1 6 11 n/aSligo 8 9 n/aWestport 4 2 n/aWexford 5 20 8

Source: Iarnrd ireann Timetable, Bus Eireann Journey Planner, Various Websites


14/15093

7.6.3 Journey Times

A key distinction between services provided byprivate operators and Bus Eireann is that the latterdoes not operate non-stop interurban services,whereas the private sector does. Journey times onall of Iarnrd ireanns InterCity routes are fasterthan those of Bus Eireann and considerably so insome cases:

Iarnrd ireann is 154 minutes faster thanBus Eireann on the Dublin to Tralee route. BusEireann does not operate a direct service onthis route and the average switch time tochange from the Dublin-Limerick bus to theLimerick-Tralee bus is 47 minutes. In addition,there is a 15 minute comfort break on theDublin-Limerick bus route. This gives a totalbreak time of 62 minutes. The remaining92 minutes difference is explained by loweraverage speed; and

Iarnrd ireann is 111 minutes faster than BusEireann on the Dublin-Westport route and95 minutes faster on the Dublin-Cork route -with a 15 minute comfort break on the formerand a 38 minute break on the latter.Given theimprovement in the National Primary Routesystem, non-stopping private sector servicesare very competitive with rail in terms of end-to-end journey times.

Competition from Private Bus Operators isstrongest where the provision of non-stop serviceshas enabled them to match Iarnrd ireann journeytimes and to surpass those of Bus Eireann. Forexample, the Citylink and GoBus non-stop Dublin-Galway services have an advertised journey timeof 150 minutes. This compares to 161 minutes forIarnrd ireann and 180 minutes for the 6 stopBus Eireann service (See Table 7.6)

7.6.4 Fare Competition

Both Expressway and private operators offerrelatively low fares. This is particularly true of the Dublin-Galway route where competition hasresulted in very low fares. The bus operators donot vary fares by time of day or give discounts foradvanced booking (apart from a discount re ectiveof reduced administrative costs). Bus fares arelow compared to rail walk-on fares, however railadvance fares come close to matching bus fares.

7.6.5 Future Competition

The degree of future competition from the busmode depends on two factors:

The degree of liberalisation of access to thebus market; and

The extent to which Expressway choosesto provide more non-stop or limited stopservices.


15/15094

Table 7.7: Comparison of Travel Modes by Journey Time (in minutes)

From Dublin to: Iarnrd ireann Bus Eireann Private BusOperatorsCork 170 265 230Belfast 130 157 150 to 175

Galway: Limited-Stop 161 180 150Galway: Multi-Stop 200 195Limerick 137 220 160 to 225Waterford 143 180 163Tralee 238 392 n/aSligo 185 231 n/aWestport 209 320 n/aWexford 155 170 133

Source: Iarnrd ireann Timetable, Bus Eireann Journey Planner, Various Websites

Table 7.8: Comparison of Travel Modes by Fare

Iarnrd ireann Bus Eireann Private BusFrom Dublin to: Adult Single Advance Adult Single Online StandardCork 66.00 20.00 13.00 11.70 15.00Belfast 38.00 18.00 15.00 n/a 15.00

Galway: Limited-Stop34.50 /

48.0025.00 15.00 13.50 10.00

Multi-Stop 1 / 5 / 14Limerick 50.00 15.00 11.00 9.90 11.00

Waterford 27.00 / 34.50 10.00 13.50 12.15 14.00

Tralee 68.50 20.00 25.50 22.95 n/a

Sligo 32.00 / 44.00 22.00 19.00 17.10 n/a

Westport35.00 / 48.50 25.00 19.00 17.10 n/a

Wexford 22.50 10.00 16.50 14.85 15.00

Source: Iarnrd ireann, Bus Eireann, Various Websites


16/15095

Both of these factors will be in uenced by the buslicensing policy in operation. The Public TransportRegulation Act installed the National TransportAuthority as the bus licensing authority. The NTAalso in uences bus service levels through PSO grantaid. The NTA has indicated how it will approachbus licensing through the publication of Guidelinesfor the Licensing of Public Bus Passenger Services(2010). These guidelines indicate that the NTA willbase decisions of the issuing of additional licences,inter alia, on:

The demand or potential demand in the entiremarket;

The needs of public transport users andthe extent to which the market segment iscurrently serviced;

The impact of proposed services on existingPSO services on the route; and

The preservation of good order and safety onpublic roads through temporal separation of services.

While the NTA has discretion to operate withinthese guidelines, it is clear that full liberalisationof entry to the market is not envisaged and thatexisting operators can in uence the process bydemonstrating that they are supplying existingmarket segments satisfactorily. In particular, theNTA may be reluctant to license additional serviceswhere the effect is to increase rail operating de citsand thus the PSO subvention required.

7.6.6 Overview

The bus mode tends to be more than competitivewith rail on the basis of fares and service frequency.In respect of journey times however, it is onlyon routes such as Galway and Wexford, whererail services are relatively slow and private busoperators are offering services, that rail offers poorservice in terms of journey times. It is by no meanscertain that competition from the bus mode willincrease over the medium term. Policy decisions onthe part of the NTA will be a determining factor.

7.7 Internal Air Transport7.7.1 Introduction

This section of the report reviews both the demand

for and the supply of domestic air transportpassenger services in Ireland; analyses air transportpricing policies being implemented by theproviders of domestic air services; and draws someconclusions regarding the level of competitionposed by domestic air services to Iarnrd ireannboth now and in the future.

7.7.2 Level of Service

Table 7.9 sets out the number of domestic

outbound ights operated by each of the nineairports in Ireland (as at September 2010). Theights are categorised by whether they represent

AM peak ights (6.00 am 10.00 am); PM peakights (16.00pm 20.00 pm); or other ights (all

other times).

As the Table shows, Dublin operates by far thelargest number of domestic ight options, withweekday AM peak ights available to Cork,Galway and Sligo and weekday PM peak ights


17/15096

available to Cork, Knock, Galway, Sligo andDonegal (presumably targeting returning businesscommuters, as well as other types of passengers).

Cork, Galway, Kerry, Knock and Sligo airports alloperate similar levels of domestic ight services,each providing at least one AM and one PM peak

ight option to Dublin on weekdays27 . In the caseof Cork and Galway airports, there are two AM

ight options available to Dublin on weekdays.Shannon airport provides just one daily ightoption to Dublin, this ight is available during theAM peak period on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday andSaturday.28

As the Table shows there were 109 domestic ightsoperating weekly out of Dublin to other domesticairports in Ireland in September 2010. There wereequally 109 Dublin-bound ights operating weeklyfrom Irish airports. In addition, there were a further22 ights scheduled between domestic airportsin Ireland (which neither departed nor arrived inDublin airport).

These data show that air travel is a competitor onmost radial rail routes, with the Belfast service beingthe obvious exception. However, where it providescompetition, it offers a much less frequent service.

7.7.3 Journey Times

Air journey times from Dublin to other airports aretypically some 45 to 50 minutes. They are thus verycompetitive compared to the rail journey times.However, such comparisons ignore the accessand egress times associated with these modes.As airports are situated outside conurbations, theaccess and egress times associated with air traveltend to be high

7.7.4 Fares

The airlines that provide internal ights operatevery exible fares policies, with lower fares foradvance purchase and higher fares for exibletickets. Ryanair operates a yield managementsystem that results in very low fares on occasion.Advance purchase rail fares tend to be somewhatabove the lowest air fares on offer, but not to asigni cant degree. On the other hand walk-up railfares are signi cantly below the equivalent air fares

27 From November 2010, the number of Kerry-Dublin ights will be reduced to one daily ight (during AM peak).28 Flights from Shannon to Dublin cease for the winter period.


18/15097

7.7.5 Use of Internal Air Services

Almost one million domestic passengers (940,199)passed through Dublin Airport in 2008. In that year,approximately 450,800 domestic passengers werehandled by Cork Airport, while the corresponding

gure for Shannon Airport was 211,429. Amongthe remaining three airports for which domestic

passenger data is available, Kerry recorded thelargest number of passengers with 126,159

domestic passengers passing through that airportin 2008. See Table 7.10.

Table 7.11 compares the annual number of airpassengers on radial routes and the equivalentrail patronage. This shows that air travel has asigni cant market share compared to rail on Cork,Limerick and Kerry routes, but less so on the

Galway route.

Table 7.9: Summary Domestic Flights and Passenger Numbers

AirportNo AM Peak Domestic Flights(weekly)

No PM Peak Domestic Flights(weekly)

No OtherDomestic Flights(weekly)

Total DomesticFlights(Dublin-bound)

Dublin 29 40 40 109Shannon 4 - - 4 (4)Cork 10 9 8 27 (24)Knock 7 - - 7 (7)Kerry 7 - 14 21 (21)Galway 14 10 13 37 (26)Sligo 5 7 2 14 (14)Donegal 6 1 6 13 (13)Waterford - 4 4 8 (0)

Source: CSO and Goodbody Economic Consultants


19/15098

Table 7.10: Number of Passengers on Domestic Flights by Airport, 2008

Airport No. Passengers on DomesticFlightsNo. Total Passenger(all Flights)

Dublin 940,199 23,507,205Shannon 211,42929 2,956,951

Cork 450,833 3,259,109Knock 12,217 629,712Kerry 126,159 426,115Galway 90,231 266,473Sligo na 42,493Donegal na 65,539Waterford na 144,253

Source: CSO, Tourism Trends 2008

Table 7.11: Number of Passengers on Rail and Air Routes Compared

Air route No Passengers onDomestic Flights Rail route No Rail Passengers

Shannon 211,429 Dublin - Limerick 741,000Cork 450,833 Dublin - Cork 2,434,000

Knock 12,217 Dublin WestportBallina 417,000

Kerry 126,159 Dublin - Tralee 499,000Galway 90,231 Dublin - Galway 1,219,000Sligo na Dublin - Sligo 1,207,000Donegal naWaterford na Dublin - Waterford 1,121,000

29 Figure includes transit passengers


20/15099

7.7.6 Public Service Contracts

In Ireland, many domestic scheduled ights aresupported by Public Service Obligations (PSO).EU Regulation allows the imposition of PSOs forreasons of economic development or of territorialconnection.

Currently, Aer Arann receives PSO subsidies tooperate ights from Dublin to Galway, Sligo,Knock and Donegal, while Ryanair receives PSOsubsidies for its Dublin to Kerry route30 . The valueof PSO subsidies awarded on these routes overthe previous two subvention periods, namely 2002 2005 and 2005 2008, are set out in Table 7.12.In May 2008, details were announced of the mostrecent round of PSO funding which totalled 44.6mallocated up to 2011.

Table 7.12: PSO Contracted Subvention Amounts

Routes

Contractamounts forperiod July02-July 05

Contractamounts forperiod July05-July 08

Kerry/Dublin 14,361,100 9,025,482Galway/Dublin 16,317,100 8,999,571Donegal/ Sligo/Dublin 14,400,000 15,526,782Knock/Dublin 9,969,600

12,266,066Derry/Dublin 7,729,668Total 62,777,468 45,817,901

Source: Department of Transport Website

The obligations associated with the successfultendering for the provision of PSO scheduled ightservices outline minimum levels of service thatmust be provided by the successful PSO operators.For example, at least three return ights per day,7 days per week, must be provided on the Galwayto Dublin route, and the ights must include amorning ight from Galway to Dublin as well as anevening return ight. On the basis of the publishedservice level obligations, it can be concluded thatall of the ights operated between Dublin-Sligo,Dublin-Knock, Dublin-Donegal and Dublin-Kerryand potentially all the ights between Dublin andGalway are PSO ights.31

In July 2009, An Bord Snip recommended theending of PSO air routes in Ireland. More recently, aValue for Money Review of Regional Airport Policyhas been undertaken, as the Government considersways to cut spending in Decembers Budget. At EUlevel, under updated EU legislation governing PSOservices, it has been signalled that more stringentconditions will apply to future PSO arrangements,having regard, for example, to the availability of other transport connections, and especially railservices, with a travelling time of three hours orless. In early 2011, the Transport Minister removedPSO support for routes between Dublin and Sligo,Knock, Galway and Derry, While continuing that forDonegal and Kerry.

A cessation to the support provided to airlines viaPSO subsidies would likely result in a signi cantreduction in the number of ights operatedbetween Dublin and the currently PSO supportedregional airports. Such a situation could result in amodal shift of passengers from air to rail services.

30 Domestic ights to Cork and Waterford are not supported by PSO subsidies.31 In addition to specifying minimum service levels, maximum fare levels are speci ed which successful PSO operators must implement.


21/150100

7.7.7 Summary

In September 2010, 109 domestic ights operatedweekly out of Dublin to other domestic airportsin Ireland. There were equally 109 Dublin-bound

ights operating weekly from other Irish airports.There were a further 22 ights scheduled betweennon-Dublin domestic airports in Ireland.

The number of passengers on domesticights passing through Dublin airport totalled

approximately one million in 2008. The equivalentnumbers for Cork and Shannon airports were450,800 and 211,429 respectively. In that year, justover 126,000 domestic passengers passed throughKerry airport, while 90,000 passed through Galwayairport. Air travel has a signi cant market sharecompared to rail on Cork, Limerick and Kerry routes,but less so on the Galway route.

PSO subsidies enable airlines to offer attractivefares for PSO supported services. A cessation tothe support provided to airlines via PSO subsidieswould undoubtedly put the future of these servicesat risk, and potentially result in a signi cantreduction in the number of ights operatedbetween Dublin and the regional airports.

7.8 Modelling Aggregate Passenger

Demand Forecasts7.8.1 Introduction

This sub-section of the report uses the populationand economic growth projections described aboveto derive aggregate projections of passengerdemand on the ICN. These projections are tobe regarded as Do-Nothing projections i.e. theydescribe the demand that would arise in theabsence of any further investments. They are also

likely to be conservative as previous analyses haveshown that energy price increases are likely toresult in a modal shift to rail and competition fromair travel may diminish. Neither of these factors isaccounted for in the projections set out below.

The aggregate projection was effected throughthe development of a time-series demand model.A long times series of passenger data is availablefor only the rail system as a whole. However, thefocus of the study is on the ICN system outsideof the Dublin area. Unfortunately, a coherent setof passenger data, which distinguishes betweenpatronage on the Dublin and non Dublin railsystems is not available for the period. Aseconometric analyses require a reasonably lengthydata period, modelling of demand must beundertaken for the system as a whole, with the ICNdemand being derived from that overall model.

7.8.2 Modelling Future Demand

In the past, a relatively sophisticated modelof rail passenger demand was developed thatrelated demand to demographic and economicaggregates.32 This study of interurban rail demandfound that demand variations could be largelyexplained by fare levels and consumer incomes,with the latter being the more important factor.It was established that the income elasticity wasclose to unity i.e. a 1 per cent increase in incomesgave rise to an approximate 1 per cent increase indemand.

More recent studies in the UK also found thatincomes (or Gross Value Added) was the drivingfactor for rail demand outstripping the effects of population and other variables.33 Another recentreport in the UK has found that income elasticityof demand for rail is as high as 2.34

32 H.McGeehan. Forecasting the Demand for Inter-Urban Railway Travel in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 18, Number 3,1984.

33 Gerard Whelan. Examining the In uence of Socio-Demographic Change on Rail Demand. MVA Consultancy, 2007.34 N. Paulley et al. The Demand for Public Transport: the Effect of Fares, Quality of Service, Income and Car Ownership. Transport Policy, 2006.


22/150101

These studies con rm the dominance of incomelevels as a driving force in rail demand, althoughthere are different ndings in terms of the strengthof the income effect.

Some insight into the role of economic anddemographic variables in in uencing demand onthe ICN network can be gleaned from Table 7.13.This Table sets out the changes in rail passengerdemand and the main demographic and economicaggregates over the period from 1992 to the peakyear of 2007 and in the period thereafter.

Over the period 1992 to 2007, passenger demandgrew by 76.3 per cent in total or by 3.9 per centannually. It may be seen that this rate of growth indemand was half the rate of growth in GNP and 94per cent of the increase in employment, over thesame period.

In the period 2007-2009, which encompasses thecurrent economic downturn, demand has fallenby 14.7 per cent, which is broadly in line with thefall in GNP ( -13.8 per cent). This implies a greatersensitivity of demand to changes in GNP in thelatter period.

Table 7.13: Growth Rates in Passenger Demand and Economic Aggregates (1992-2009)

Period Variable

Rail Demand(%)

GNP

(%)

Employment

(%)

Population

(%)1992- 2007: Aggregate Growth (%) 76.3 151.2 81.4 22.1Annual Average Growth (%) 3.9 6.3 4.1 1.32007-2009:Aggregate Growth (%) -14.7 -13.8 -8.3 2.8

Annual Average Growth (%) -7.7 -7.2 -4.2 1.4Source: Goodbody Economic Consultants


23/150102

The data from 1992 to 2009 comprise 17 datapoints. This does not permit sophisticatedeconometric modelling. Ideally, it would be usefulto segment the passenger market and to developseparate econometric models for each segment(commuters, business leisure etc.). However, thebroad correlation between GNP and passengerdemand suggest that a simple linear regressionmodel that related the two variables might beuseful. This was calculated as follows:

Passengers/Population = 4.532 + 0.143GNP/ Population

R-square = 0.843; F = 85.7; t (GNP) = 9.26

Figure 7.4 depicts the t of this model. It indicatesthat journeys per capita exhibit somewhat greatervariability than the tted model, but that the lattercaptures both the general upward trend and thedecline in the post 2007 period.

Figure 7.4: Actual and Predicted Rail Journeys per Capita, 1992 - 2009

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

P e r

C a p

i t a

J o u r n e y

s

Actual per capita journeys Predicted per capita journeys

Source: Iarnrd ireann and Goodbody Economic Consultants


24/150103

7.9 Predicting Future DemandThe model can be used to predict futuredemand based on assumptions of future GNPand population growth. These assumptions aresummarised in Table 7.14 They envisage a slightrecovery in GNP in 2011 followed by growth of 4

per cent in 2102 and 2013, before a more modestgrowth rate of 3 per cent sets in.

The national population is expected to decline in2010 and 2011 before resuming modest growthas the natural increase offsets the impact of emigration.

Table 7.15 sets out the predicted growth inpassenger numbers for the rail system as a wholefor the period up to 2030. This suggests that

passenger numbers will fall slightly in 2010 beforebeginning to recover slowly from 2011. Passengernumbers will not recover their 2007 peak of 45.5muntil after 2015. The long term predicted growthrate is 1.9 per cent. This lower growth rate re ectslower population and GNP growth rates in thepost Celtic Tiger period. As indicated above, it wasnot possible to undertake a modelling exercise forthe ICN network due to lack of a suf cient timeseries of data. The ICN share of total traf c was 55per cent in 2009 and that this has changed onlyslightly in the recent past. The ICN projections setout in Table 7.14 are based on the assumptionthat the ICN share of traf c remains at 55 per cent.The projection is for ICN traf c to increase from21.3m in 2009 to 31.1m in 2030. This represents anincrease of 46 per cent or 1.8 per cent per annum.

Table7.14: Population and GNP Predictions 2010-2030

Year Population Population AnnualGrowth Rate (%)GNPAnnual Growth Rate(%)

2010 4,435 -0.55 -1.12011 4,430 -0.10 2.32012 4,460 0.68 4.0

2013 4,498 0.85 4.0

2015 4,571 0.80 3.02020 4,735 0.70 3.02025 4,861 0.50 3.02030 4,958 0.40 3.0

Source: Goodbody Economic Consultants


25/150104

7.10 Prediction of PassengerDemand by Route

Table 7.16 provides an indication of the futurepassenger demand by route segment. Theseforecasts assume that no service improvementsare made and are thus driven by economic and

demographic factors. In particular, they re ect thedifferential growth rate in cities and towns acrossthe country. When compared with Table 5.3, it maybe seen that an overall growth rate of 33 per centby 2025. Some parts pf the network, Connolly tothe Border experience more substantial growth,while city centre stations less so because of slower

population growth within the urban area.

Table7.15: Forecasts of Passenger Numbers 2009 2030

Year Total RailPassengers (m)Annual Rate of Growth (%)

ICN Passengers(m)

Annual Rate of Growth (%)

2010 38.8 -0.8 21.2 -0.8

2011 38.5 1.1 21.4 1.12012 38.9 2.3 21.9 2.32013 40.8 2.4 22.4 2.4

2015 42.4 1.9 23.3 1.92020 46.6 1.9 21.4 1.92025 52.8 1.9 21.9 1.92030 58.2 1.9 22.4 1.9



26/150105

Table 7.16: Boardings by Rail Corridor (average weekday, 2025)

Sector Commuting Business Leisure Total

1 Connolly toBorder 13867 920 3367 18154

2 Connolly toSligo 14337 1867 6798 23002

3 Portarlingtonto Galway 995 447 1724 3166

4 Heuston toCork 14556 2690 10168 27414

5 Kildare toWaterford 668 239 969 1876

6 Connolly toRosslare 5268 567 2088 7923

7 Ballina Spur 10 6 26 42

8 Athlone toWestport 86 95 385 566

9 Athenry toLimerick 415 37 149 601

10 Ballybrophy toLimerick 59 6 35 100

11 Limerick Spur 87 111 419 61712 Tralee Spur 105 91 352 548

13 Waterford toLimerick Jn 52 48 187 287

14 CorkCommuter 750 206 755 1711

15 Navan toConnolly*16 Dublin City 61587 10469 37464 109520

Total 112842 17799 64886 195527

* Not considered in this study


27/150106

7.11 Overview Passenger demand on the rail system as a wholerose from 25.8m passengers in 1992 to a peakof 45.5m in 2007, and increase of 76.4 per centor 3.9 per cent per annum. With the onset of theeconomic recession, demand declined to 38.8m

passengers by 2009 or by 14.7 per cent from thepeak.

International and domestic studies con rm thedominance of income levels as a driving force inrail demand, although there are different ndingsin terms of the strength of the income effect. Overthe period 1992 to 2007, the rate of growth intotal rail passenger demand represented half thatexperienced in GNP demand.

In the period 2007-2009, which encompasses thecurrent economic downturn, rail passenger demandhas fallen by 14.7 per cent, which is broadly in linewith the fall in GNP (-13.8 per cent). This implies agreater sensitivity of demand to changes in GNP inthe latter period.

Passenger numbers for the rail system as a wholefell slightly in 2010 but are anticipated to recoverslowly from 2011. Passenger numbers will notrecover their 2007 peak of 45.5m until after 2015.The long term predicted growth rate is 1.9 per cent.This lower growth rate re ects lower populationand GNP growth rates in the post Celtic Tigerperiod.

The ICN share of total traf c was 55 per cent in2009 and this has changed only slightly in therecent past. The projection is for ICN traf c toincrease from 21.3m in 2009 to 31.1m in 2030. Thisrepresents an increase of 46 per cent or 1.8 percent per annum. This may represent a conservativeforecast, as there is potential for rail to wintraf c from both car and air modes, as a result of increased energy prices and reduced subventionof air services. Increased competition from thebus mode is likely to arise only if a policy shift toliberalisation of the bus market takes place.


28/150107


29/150

8 Reinstatement &Closure of Rail Lines


30/150109

8.1 IntroductionThe terms of reference required that the potentialfor the reinstatement of disused lines beinvestigated. Subsequently, the consultants wereasked to develop a methodology for appraisalthat could be used on an ongoing basis to assess

both reinstatement of lines and closure of existingservices.

Rather than engage in substantial modelling of demand for such lines, it was considered that froma strategic viewpoint, the emphasis should focuson whether individual reinstatement of closuredecisions merited further investigation. Thus, theanalysis should be regarded as a pre-feasibilityappraisal.

8.2 Methodology8.2.1 Overall Approach

As these are proposals for capital investment ordivestment, they should be evaluated within thecontext of the Departments Common AppraisalFramework (CAF). However, the application of theCAF methodology assumes that projects havereached the feasibility stage and that an appraisalis needed to assess the options that have been

identi ed. The CAF does not provide guidance onhow to decide whether there is an a priori case tosubject particular proposals to feasibility study.This paper proposes a screening methodology thatis aimed at establishing whether there is a primafacie case for particular proposals to proceed toa feasibility study. It then goes on to apply themethodology to some proposals that have arisenduring the context of the consultation exercise. Afeature of the methodology is that it could alsobe used to establish a prima facie case for rail

closures. The overall approach to developing sucha screening appraisal was to develop a simpli edapproach that is in keeping with the spirit of theCAF. This was done in the rst instance for thereinstatement of disused lines.

The CAF embodies both a cost-bene t analysis anda multicriteria analysis approach to appraisals. Thecriteria employed are:

Economy;

Safety;

Environment;

Accessibility and Social Inclusion; and

Integration.

The Economy Criterion contains a cost-bene telement aimed at establishing users and non-userbene ts in monetary terms, while the multi-criteriaanalysis considers a range of other impacts in bothquantitative and qualitative terms. Implementationof a cost bene t approach requires signi cantmodelling of demand and estimation of costs. Forthe purposes of a pre-feasibility screening appraisal,neither demand estimation nor project costinformation will be available, so that an alternativeapproach is required. The approach adopted herewas to develop a number of quantitative andqualitative (as opposed to monetary) indicators thatcould be used to appraise proposals.


31/150110

8.2.2 Development of Indicators

One of the features of the CAF appraisal approachis that the scale of the bene ts, whether theybe user, non-user or other bene ts, is based onthe predicted use of the transport system that isbeing appraised. This is true of the Economy andSafety bene ts and is partially true of Environment,Integration and Accessibility bene ts.

Thus, in the case of railway investments, predictedpatronage is a strong indicator of bene ts.In advance of a feasibility study, estimates of patronage will not be available. However, it ispossible to gauge the overall market for theproposed rail lines, by estimating the population inthe rail catchment. This can be done by identifyingthe stations that would be in place and measuringthe population in the catchment from DED levelCensus of Population data. In undertaking thisanalysis, the catchment was calculated as thestation town or village population, or if there wasno signi cant settlement, it was based on one thirdof the population of the DED in which the stationwas situated.

The demand measured in this way is a proxy foruser and non-user bene ts and these ideally shouldbe set against the capital and operating costs.However, as the latter may not be available, thelength of the proposed rail line could be used as aproxy. Thus, the rst indicator proposed is:

Aggregate station catchment population / railline kilometres.

This indicator re ects patronage potential relativeto a proxy for capital and operating costs. However,patronage will also be dependant on the level of competition from road based modes. Ultimately, the

level of competition is determined by the relative journey times for road and rail. Relative journeytimes are related to the relative journey lengths byroad and rail and the road and rail infrastructuredesign speed.

Perusal of a number of proposals for reinstatementof lines indicated that relative rail and road lengthstended not to differ much. This is because transportinfrastructure developments, whether they beroad or rail often follow the line of least resistancetopographically. As a result, route distance wasnot considered as a good proxy for competitioneffects. However, road design speed is an importantindicator of competition from road modes. As roaddesign speed is related to road type, an indicatordeveloped around the latter was developed.

Competing road type.

Four levels of competition were identi ed asfollows:

Motorway/Dual Carriageway;

Other National Primary;

National Secondary; and

Regional or local roads

Thus, on this indicator, a proposed rail line that hasa competing Motorway/Dual Carriageway wouldscore low marks, as the level of service on that roadwould be high.

The rst two indicators re ect the capacity of the railway to win patronage relative to the costsof the line. Road safety bene ts will be directlyrelated to rail patronage, as will environmental


32/150111

emissions. Other environmental aspects, suchas visual intrusion are route speci c and couldnot be assessed at this preliminary stage. As aconsequence, safety and environmental bene ts areassumed to be proxied by the above two indicators.

Integration is a relevant consideration even at pre-feasibility stage for three reasons:

While catchment populations are an accurateproxy for additional rail patronage in respectof branch lines, they do not re ect thepatronage potential of new lines that link uprail networks. This is because in the latter case,new links offer potential for rail travel betweenstations that are not on the new line;

New rail links may offer reduced journey timesbetween stations on existing lines; and

Where National Spatial Strategy hubs andGateways are connected to the rail system,greater integration bene ts arise.

For this reason, an integration indictor is proposedas follows:

Degree of integration of rail infrastructure.

This has a number of hierarchical dimensions asfollow:

No linking of existing rail routes and noGateway or Hub connected e.g. pure branchline attaching small towns and villages;

Creates a link that shortens rail journey timesbetween existing rail stations but no Gatewaysor Hubs connected;

Linking of existing rail routes resulting inbetter connection of existing Gateway or Hubson the rail system;

No linking of existing rail routes but a Gatewayor Hub is attached to the rail system; and

Linking of existing rail routes resulting internalintegration of a Gateway or Hub.

A branch line e.g. Middleton to Youghal would havelittle impact on this criterion, as it does not link twoseparate parts of the rail network.

Rail services would tend to have a substantialbene t in terms of providing access for sociallydeprived households in circumstances where thereis no alternative bus service or where the servicesprovided are poor. The quality of bus services isa function of frequency and journey times. Longdistance bus service levels vary by day of theweek, with lower frequencies usually observedat weekends. Where services are operated on adaily basis and with high frequency, the qualityof the service is generally regarded as high. Withthis in mind, the quality of bus was measured bythe frequency of daily services Monday-Fridayoperating through the largest town/village on therail route. The following dimensions of service areproposed:

Daily service Monday to Friday with 0 to 9services per day: maximum of 100 points;


Daily service Monday to Friday with 15 to 19services per day: maximum of 50 points; and


33/150112

Daily service Monday to Friday with 20 to 50plus services per day: maximum of 25 points.

This classi cation means that a service thatoperates hourly each way between the hours of 8am and 7pm would be regarded as falling into thehighest level of service category. This classi cationdoes not take account of the in vehicle journey

times by bus. However, given that journey timesare related to the quality of the road infrastructureand that the latter is captured on another criterion,it was felt that there was no need to furthercomplicate this criterion.

8.2.3 Scoring and Weighting of Indicators

The above process has produced four indicators asfollows:

Aggregate station catchment population / railline kilometres;

Degree of integration of rail infrastructure;

Quality of competing bus services; and

Competing road type.

With regard to scoring of these indicators, therewas a need to establish a means of scoring within a

range of 0 to 100. As the rst indicator is numeric,this required translating numeric values into the0 to 100 scale. In order to do this, the equivalentcharacteristics for the Manulla Junction-Westportline were calculated. This line section was chosenas representing a section that, if subject to a cost-bene t, would be likely to provide a reasonablereturn to its development.

With regard to competing road type the followingscores were adopted:

Motorway/Dual Carriageway 0 points

Other National Primary 33 points

National Secondary 66 points

Regional or local roads 100 points

In the event that the road network varied suchthat some of the route was motorway and the restnational secondary, then the points were weightedaccording to the representative length of road.

Integration was scored as follows:

No linking of existing rail routes and noGateway or Hub connected e.g. pure branchline attaching small towns and villages: 20points;

Creates a link that shortens rail journey timesbetween existing rail stations but no Gatewaysor Hubs connected: 40 points;

Linking of existing rail routes resulting inbetter connection of existing Gateway or Hubson the rail system: 60 points;

No linking of existing rail routes but a Gatewayor Hub is attached to the rail system: 80points; and

Linking of existing rail routes resulting internalintegration of a Gateway or Hub: 100 points.


34/150113

The quality of bus services was scored as follows:



Daily service Monday to Friday with 15 to 19services per day: maximum of 50 points; and

Daily service Monday to Friday with 20 to 50plus services per day: maximum of 25 points.

These scores represent the maximum points thatcan be achieved by bus services falling into eachcategory. Within each category, actual points to beawarded can be below these levels.

The weighting scheme applied was as follows:

Aggregate station catchment population / railline kilometres: 35 points;

Degree of integration of rail infrastructure: 30points;

Quality of competing bus services: 15 points;and

Competing road type: 20 points.

This weighting scheme re ects the fact that the rstindicator is re ective of a large range of bene tscovering Economy, Safety and Environment as wellas the costs of construction and maintenance.

8.3 Appraisal of Rail Lines8.3.1 Appraisal of Proposed New Rail Lines

A number of new rail lines have been suggested.These include the following:

An extension of the Midleton Line to Youghal; An extension of the Northern Ireland Rail

system into the Republic via a link betweenDerry and Letterkenny;

The second phase of the Western Rail Corridorbetween Athenry and Claremorris, which isenvisaged to be implemented in two sections:Athenry-Tuam and Tuam-Claremorris;

A new link from Charleville via Patrickswell toLimerick;

Reinstatement of the Mullingar-Athlone Line;and

Re-opening of the Drogheda-Navan Line topassenger traf c.

There is also pressure from groups in Donegaland other Border counties for the introduction of

railways in Donegal. While these are not speci c, wehave evaluated the introduction of a rail link fromDerry to Lifford and Strabane.

Table 8.1 provides an overview of the evaluation.Taking Midleton-Youghal as an example, thisproposed route scores poorly (48 points) onthe Population per Route Km score as the onlysigni cant settlement attached to the rail systemby the investment is Youghal itself. On Integration,its score is poor (20 points), as it is a branch line


35/150114

and does not link parts of the network. Moreover, itdoes not contain a Gateway or Hub. With regard toroad competition, it again scores poorly (33 points),as there is a National Primary Route in competitionwith the line. It also scores poorly on the qualityof alternative bus services, as there are relativelygood bus links. The overall score of 33 out of 100for this route means that it is a poor candidatefor reopening. Other potential lines to score lessthan 50 points are Charleville-Limerick, Tuam-Claremorris, Mullingar-Athlone, Derry-Strabane andDrogheda- Navan. In the case of Drogheda-Navan,the analysis assumes that Clonsilla-Navan will beconstructed. Athenry Tuam and Derry-Letterkennyperform somewhat better, but nevertheless do notachieve high scores.

8.4 Appraisal of Lightly Used ServicesLightly traf cked lines are usually considered forservice closure. A full evaluation of a proposalfor service closure would be undertaken froma marginal viewpoint, through comparison of marginal costs and bene ts. This is different to

appraisal of a proposed line, as full capital costswould not normally be considered. However, theindicators developed above are still relevant tosuch decisions e.g. population per route kilometreis relevant as the bene ts lost from servicediscontinuation will be related to population andthe cost of maintaining the route. Integrationbene ts lost are likewise related to the type of line it is and its role vis--vis Gateways and Hubs.

Table 8.1: Multicriteria Appraisal of Proposed Rail Lines (scores out of 100)

Rail Line Population perRoute km IntegrationRoadCompetition Bus Quality Total

Midleton-Youghal 48 20 33 26 33Derry-Letterkenny 71 80 33 20 59Derry-Lifford- Strabane 97 20 33 0 47Athenry Tuam 39 80 100 20 61

Tuam Claremorris 2 60 33 76 37Mullingar Athlone 9 100 22 51 45Charleville Limerick 19 60 16.5 25 32Drogheda - Navan 17 40 66 51 39



36/150115

The quality of the alternative road system limitsthe potential of the services to achieve economicviability. However, the quality of existing alternativebus services is not considered a good indicatorof access for socially deprived households. Thisis because alternative additional bus services areusually put in place, when closure of rail servicesoccurs. As a result, this criterion was not used inthis sketch appraisal of service closures. The NTAhas devised a methodology for estimating socialimpacts in the context of full appraisal of serviceclosures.35

This analysis was undertaken for the followinglightly used services:

Rosslare Europort Waterford;

Limerick Ballybrophy;

Limerick Junction- Waterford; and

Manulla-Ballina

These are lines that could potentially be consideredfor closure. Rosslare Europort-Waterford is includedto provide a comparison of a line on which serviceshave recently been discontinued. Again, Table8.2 provides data on the characteristics of thelines, while Table 8.3 sets out the indicators andscores. It should be noted that these scores are notcomparable with those for new services outlinedabove. This is because fewer criteria were used.The lightly traf cked line of Manulla-Westport isused as a benchmark.

Note that the exercise below which focuses onpopulation ignores the wider value of the Manullato Ballina spur in supporting ongoing freightoperations.

35

See: Social Impact Methodology. NTA, 2010.

Table 8.2: Characteristics of Lightly Traf cked Rail Lines

Rail Line Route Kilometres Number of Stations CatchmentPopulation

Rosslare EP Waterford 57 4 1,059Limerick Ballybrophy 92 5 14,609Limerick-Waterford 124 4 30,576Manulla Ballina 33 2 11,467Manulla-Westport 25 2 17,366


37/150116

Table 8.3: Multicriteria Appraisal of Service Retention (scores out of 100)

Rail Line Population perRoute km IntegrationRoadCompetition Total

Rosslare EP Waterford 3 60 33 30Limerick Ballybrophy 23 40 0 24

Limerick- Junction -Waterford 36 60 33 44Manulla-Ballina 49 80 33 56Manulla-Westport 100 80 33 77

8.5. OverviewA methodology for the sketch multi-criteriaappraisal of proposed new lines and serviceclosure on lightly traf cked existing lines has

been developed. The purpose of the appraisal isto determine whether proposed new lines meritfuller assessment through a feasibility study and toidentify possible candidates for service closure.

With regard to proposals for new lines, thefollowing were analysed:

An extension of the Midleton Line to Youghal;

An extension of the Northern Ireland Rail

system into the Republic via a link betweenDerry and Letterkenny;

The second phase of the Western Rail Corridorbetween Athenry and Claremorris, which isenvisaged to be implemented in two sections:Athenry-Tuam and Tuam-Claremorris;

A new link from Charleville via Patrickswell toLimerick;

Reinstatement of the Mullingar-Athlone Line;and

Re-opening of the Drogheda-Navan Line topassenger traf c.

Of these, the Athenry-Tuam line, while not receivinga convincing score offers some potential forreinstatement and should be subject to furtherreview in light of the patronage experience of Phase1 of the Western Rail Corridor. Currently, this iswell short of levels forecast in the Business Case.Mullingar-Athlone and CharlevilleLimerick aresubject to further analysis in Section 9 below, asthey offer network improvements that may not befully captured by the screening methodology.

With regard to service closures, the recentclosure of the Waterford-Rosslare Europort line issupported. Another candidate for considerationfor closure is Ballybrophy-Limerick. Based on thisappraisal, while performing poorly, the LimerickJunction-Waterford and Manulla-Ballina services arenot as strong candidates for closure as BallybrophyLimerick.


38/150117


39/150

9 Development of Investment Options


40/150

9.1 IntroductionThe development of a strategy must have regardto the strategic priorities for the ICN. Section3 established these priorities and it is worthreiterating them here:

The need to build on the infrastructure androlling stock investments already madeto ensure that they make the maximumcontribution possible to economicdevelopment;

Within this context, to provide servicefrequencies and service improvements thatwill prove attractive to users in general andbusiness users and car available passengers inparticular;

Other things being equal, to concentratefuture investments and service improvementson linkages between the majoragglomerations. This suggests that the radialroutes connecting Dublin to Cork, Belfast,Galway, Limerick and Waterford should be thefocus of future rail development;

To support National Spatial Strategy objectivesby improvement of the key non-radial rail linksbetween Cork, Limerick and Galway wheretransport volumes are of suf cient density;and

To improve rail links and services to the majorairports that act as access points for tourists.

In order to build a strategy, it is necessary to rstidentify where de ciencies currently reside. This waselaborated in Section 6. A second requirement isto identify measures that could make good these

de ciencies and subject them to some preliminaryscreening. As part of this screening it is necessaryto estimate the extent to which measures willattract patronage. This screening is implementedin the rest of this Section. The fact that a measureaccords with strategic priorities is a necessary butnot suf cient reason for their inclusion in a strategy.This is especially true at present when Exchequerfunds are limited and value for money must beobtained. Section 10 will subject the screenedmeasures to cost-bene t analysis as a means of determining priorities and phasing of investments.

9.2 Forms of InvestmentWhilst the range of potential investments is quitebroad, a number of basic categories can be de ned.A number of these categories are outlined below.

Journey Time

Journey time remains a signi cant determinantof rail patronage. Users will make mode choicedecisions of the basis of travel time, quite likelyvaluing it over and above other features suchas frequency. In Ireland, on all but a few routes, journey time by road tends to be signi cantlyfaster. It is generally observed that on inter-urbancorridors, when competition with rail is strong,and the share of rail is lower than would otherwisebe expected, elasticities of demand in responseto changes in service quality will be higher. Thissuggests that quite signi cant passenger responsescan result from improvements in journey time,where journey times are currently uncompetitive.

This suggests that the approach to rail investmentshould focus as a minimum at retaining some formof competitiveness with other travel modes, as thiswill achieve the highest returns on the investment.

119


41/150

Such should obviously be a consideration in theimplementation of investment in roads, or indeed inthe provision of additional buses along InterCity railroutes, where the perceived or quanti ed bene t of such measures should allow for the resulting needfor additional investment in the rail network.

Fares

Fares are a relatively important determinant in thelevel of demand for rail. Cost is generally cited as areason for travelling by competing modes, althoughthe recent introduction of low fares, the increases infuel cost and the introduction of road tolling haveled to a rebalancing of the monetary cost of travelby road and rail. This has been partly offset by theintroduction of low cost bus services on a numberof InterCity routes which offer further alternatives torail.

The management of fares is a relatively complicatedtopic, and is covered in detail in Section 12.

Frequency

In urban systems, the frequency is accounted forin the generalised cost of rail travel by assumingthat a user will be required to wait half the averageheadway for a train. In other words, a frequencyof 6 trains per hour will lead to an average waitingtime of 5 minutes. For longer distance trainswhere headways are measured in hours, it is notreasonable to expect that a person will wait forlong periods at a railway station. Instead, that userwill plan other events around the time of the trainarrival.

For such services, headways are more appropriatelymeasured as Service Interval Penalties, whichdescribe the disutility of longer headways between

trains. Table 9.1 below outlines service intervalpenalties in minutes for all users, and is taken fromthe Non-London Inter-Urban data of the PDFH.

Table 9.1 Average Service Interval Penalties

Service Interval

(mins)

Equivalent Time Penalty

(mins)30 2360 3190 39120 47

The table suggests that increasing a train frequencyto 60 minutes (hourly) from 120 minutes (bi-hourly)leads to an effective saving in time (or disutility) of 16 minutes.

The introduction of clockface timetables alsogenerates bene t through simpli cation of timetables. There is evidence that for longerdistance trips, hourly clockface timetabling is worthin the region of 5 minutes to travellers.

Interchange

The requirement for interchange in public transporttrips is universally accepted as having a signi cantimpact on demand. Efforts to achieve seamlessinterchange are common in transport systems, andstrive to address the quite notable impacts thatuncoordinated interchange can have on demand.

For journeys of up to 200km by rail, interchange canbe perceived as an effective time penalty of up to55 minutes. This is an upper limit, and is reducedto account for regular rail users, guaranteedconnections and good waiting environments.

120


42/150

Typically, it is not unreasonable to assume aneffective penalty of between 20 minutes and 30minutes at intercity interchanges (eg LimerickJunction). In other words, passengers would beprepared to take a train that would have a journeytime of 20 minutes longer solely in order to avoidan interchange.

Reliability and Punctuality

Although dif cult to measure, reliability andpunctuality remain a prominent feature of self-reporting by rail service providers. Guidancesuggests that every minute of lateness shouldbe multiplied by 3 to estimate the effect on userdisutility. On this basis, a train arriving 10 minuteslate is equivalent to an additional journey time of 30minutes this is quite a signi cant penalty. This hasconsequential effects on trip planning, where railusers will make an allowance for lateness, therebyincorporating this effect into all journeys not justthose which are late.

It can therefore be concluded that achieving areliable service is more important than reducing journey time, and hence there is a practice of allowing extra time in rail schedules to ensuretimely arrival at destinations, at the expense of afaster timetabled journey time.

Rolling Stock Quality

The principal factors associated with rail demandare accepted as fare and journey time (including thevarious penalties discussed above). Rolling stock ismore associated with a set of basic requirements of passengers, particularly those on InterCity services.

These requirements include:

Cleanliness;

Provision of information;

Security; and

A comfortable environment.

These needs are assessed through the use of multipliers wce the value of time (effectivelygenerating some utility associated with the trip).The level of change associated with each item istypically between 1 per cent and 5 per cent, withthe highest value attributed to security. As such,once an acceptable level of rolling stock is provided(i.e. one which provides a minimal level of allthese features) the subsequent demand effects of improvements can be quite small.

Marketing

Other factors which in uence demand includethe provision of other supporting facilities, eitheron-board or at stations. Services such as cafs,shops, business lounges, waiting rooms, brandingof services and ticketing services all generate smalllevels of passenger demand.

Electri cation

Whilst the above investments are often targeted atachieving patronage increases, other interventionsare driven by the drive for greater operatingef ciencies. Electri cation can signi cantly reduceoperating and maintenance costs, whilst providinga more reliable operation, and in cases can reduce journey times on routes with high stoppingrequirements.

121


43/150

9.3 Preliminary ScreeningThe baseline assessment identi ed a number of areas where the existing network and servicesstruggled to support such a vision and hence whereoptions for future investment should be considered.

Investment options are presented as those whichseek to enhance existing infrastructure or services,and those which target future growth through newmarket opportunities.

Investment in Existing Infrastructure or Services

The Preliminary Screening is presented on a routeby route basis through the existing network,summarizing existing and future de ciencies andproposing measures which support the objectives

of the strategy.

122


44/150

Route 1: Dublin CorkTypical Journey Time: 2:45Rolling Stock Quality: ExcellentFrequency: HighDemand: High

Summary

The Dublin- Cork Route remains the central spine of the railway network,with hourly services throughout the day on high quality rolling stockand with a competitive journey time. The route generates a high level of demand between Dublin and Cork City, and captures a high proportionof demand from other modes with an estimated 50% of demand betweeneach city catered for by rail. The route, however, suffers from a largenumber of speed restrictions which impacts on journey time.Trains on this route operate in excess of 3.5 million train km per annum,making this the most cost intensive of all InterCity routes currentlyoperated.

Proposals

1.1 Reduce Journey Times to at most 2:30hrs on all services.

1.2 Consistent stopping patterns (limited stopping at commuter stationswithin the Greater Dublin Area)1.3 Electri cation of corridor

1.4Run services via DART Underground to Dublin City station (StStephens Green), and terminus in Dublin Airport via spur fromClongrif n

Comments

With the exception of the proposal to reduce the journey time to atmost 2:30hrs, proposals on this corridor are longer term measures, whichaccount for the relatively high performance of this corridor in comparison

to other routes. Future measures are therefore focused on reductionon operation and maintenance costs (through electri cation), and themaximisation of the value of Dart Underground through increasing accessto the city centre from the InterCity route network.

123


45/150

Route 2: Dublin GalwayTypical Journey Time: 2:45Rolling Stock Quality: HighFrequency: ModerateDemand: Low

Summary

The Dublin-Galway route serves a number of signi cant population centresbetween the two cities which support passenger demand on this corridor.Nevertheless, the volume of passenger movement between Dublin andGalway City Centres is low, and is below what should be expected on thebasis of the catchment population along the route. Journey times areexcessive in comparison with other modes, and there is erce competitionfrom bus operators. The large number of stops leads to a high level of delay, as does the requirement for passing loops on the single track sectionbetween Portarlington and Galway

Proposals

2.1 Reduce Journey Times to at most 2:00hrs on all services throughreducing the number of stops and targeted renewal of track.

2.2 Consistent stopping patterns (limited stopping at commuter stationswithin the Greater Dublin Area)

2.3 Double-tracking from Portarlington to Athlone, and increasingfrequency to hourly service

2.4Reinstatement of double track from Athlone to Mullingar, with doubletracking from Mullingar to Maynooth to cater for hourly servicesbetween Galway and Connolly station (alternative to Heuston)

2.5 Electri cation of corridor

2.6Run services via DART Underground to Dublin City station (StStephens Green), and terminus in Dublin Airport via spur fromClongrif n. Note that this is not compatible with option 2.4.

Comments

A high level of short, medium and long term investment is therefore beingconsidered on this route, with the objective of restoring the journey time toa level that is competitive with other modes. The electri cation is proposedas a measure to reduce operating and maintenance costs, in addition toreducing the delay associated with multiple stopping requirements. Theproposals to utilise DART Underground for both Galway and Cork serviceswould lead to InterCity Services every 30 minutes via DART Undergroundserving Dublin Airport.

124


46/150

Route 3: Dublin BelfastTypical Journey Time: 2:15Rolling Stock Quality: Excellent, but ageingFrequency: ModerateDemand: Low

Summary

Investment on the Dublin-Belfast route in the mid 1990s saw a signi cantincrease in passenger demand on that corridor. Nevertheless, passengervolumes have declined considerably in recent years, and the route nowcarries only a small proportion of the potential demand. Althoughthe service offers a good journey time, it is generally restricted by therequirement to t into commuter timetables in the Greater Dublin andBelfast areas, which can lead to delays. Signi cant improvement to thiscorridor will be challenging without major investment to trackwork northof the border.

Proposals

3.1 Reduce Journey Times to 2:00 on all services through targetedinvestment.3.2 Increase train frequency to hourly clockface timetables3.3 Relocation of Belfast Terminus to Victoria Street3.4 Electri cation of corridor

Comments

Investment options presented here are most likely to form elements of an overall strategy for this corridor which would be delivered as a jointproject between Iarnrd ireann and Northern Ireland Railways. TheDublin to Dundalk section of the route operates at quite high speedswith quite limited stopping, and the greatest scope for journey timereductions is likely to exist north of the border. Electri cation is proposed

in anticipation of the eventual progression to an hourly service in order toreduce operating costs. It should be noted that the Vision 2030 envisagesthat additional tracks will be added in the Connolly-Balbriggan section.

125


47/150

Route 4: Dublin LimerickTypical Journey Time: 2:05 (connecting) or 2:20 (Direct)Rolling Stock Quality: HighFrequency: HighDemand: Moderate

Summary

Limerick is provided with the highest number of connections from Dublincompared with any other regional destination. Connections are providedat Limerick Junction to all Dublin Cork services, with further direct, albeitstopping, services provided from Dublin Heuston. The journey time viaLimerick Junction is also good.

As a result, demand is relatively strong, and the route performs relativelyclose to its full potential. Nevertheless, the interchange requirementremains a barrier to travel on this route. The interchange also posesadditional delay to Dublin Cork Services.

Proposals 4.1Introduce bi-hourly direct services from Dublin. Facilitateconnections from Dublin Cork Trains only every 2 hours. Journeytime at most 2 hours

4.2 Upgrade Limerick Junction station as a strategic interchange tofacilitate improved transfer to/from Limerick services.4.3 Electri cation of corridor

Comments

The focus of the investment is therefore on a reduction in the relianceon interchange for access to Limerick, and the creation of at most 2 hour journey time. This allows removal of the requirement for Dublin-Corkservices to stop at Limerick Junction for every second train. Connectionsfrom Cork to Limerick would be reduced to bi-hourly.

The electri cation of the corridor is a long term proposal which is justi edby the electri cation of the Dublin Cork corridor.

126


48/150

Route 5: Dublin WaterfordTypical Journey Time: 2:30Rolling Stock Quality: HighFrequency: ModerateDemand: Low

Summary

Although subject to recent increases in service frequency, the Dublin toWaterford corridor continues to suffer from a number of barriers includingthe relatively high journey time in comparison to road, the isolation of themainline rail station in Waterford from the City Centre, and the limitedpopulation catchment along the corridor. Journey times are hampered bythe arrangement in Kilkenny, and by permanent speed restrictions throughdif cult terrain, and this all contributes to the route falling signi cantlyshort of its full potential demand.

Proposals5.1 Reduce Journey Times to at most 2:00 on all services throughtargeted investment.

5.2 Improve pedestrian/cycle connections into Waterford City Centrefrom a relocated Railway Statio

Comments

It is acknowledged that the reduction in the journey time to at most 2:00will be challenging, and ultimately such a target may not be achievable atmoderate cost. Nevertheless, the improvement in the accessibility to theCity Centre may generate substantial bene ts in itself, equivalent to majorinvestment in journey time reduction. No improvement in frequency issuggested at this stage.

127


49/150

Route 6: Dublin Westport/BallinaTypical Journey Time: 3:30Rolling Stock Quality: HighFrequency: LowDemand: Moderate

Summary

The Westport and Ballina service is one of the longer routes from Dublin,and carries relatively strong when compared to the catchment population mainly as a result of the tourism potential on the line. Even so, the highproportion of concessionary travelers on this route has been noted, whichmake up a signi cant

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	robert-roche
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

2030RailNetworkStrategyReview_21

Documents