Mr. Hugh Creegan:

The base case work that was done in 2010 had a 2:4 ratio, when the wider economic benefits are excluded. That business case covered the full DART expansion programme, the DART underground tunnel and all the other ancillary pieces. The Deputy asked what was the impetus to update the business case. It was because there was a new capital plan to be developed this year - which had been flagged for a number of years - and it was necessary to revisit, revise and update the 2010 business case to produce the current information in order to inform the new capital plan.

When the authority started work on the updated business case it identified that with the new circumstances, the DART expansion programme would have, as the Deputy has pointed out, of approximately 1.4:1 to 1.5:1. The Deputy has asked why this was different from the previous business case. There are a number of reasons. One is that the distribution of population and employment projections, or the density of population close to stations, is a bit different now than it would have been seven or eight years ago. The current business case also had to consider other factors, such as the Phoenix Park tunnel link which is now going to open next year. That would not have been a consideration in 2009 or 2010 when the original case was made. That tunnel does not have a huge impact but it does have some impact on the benefits that one can say are truly delivered by DART underground and DART expansion.

The third reason why the current business case is different from the 2010 case is there are things that could be done outside of the DART expansion project such as higher frequencies on DART. It is hoped to introduce ten minute DART services next year. They had been assumed to be part of the DART expansion programme a number of years ago but now they will be delivered outside of the programme. They do no need the DART expansion project in order to be delivered and some of those benefits cannot truly be tied to the project.

I will conclude with the fact that in the intervening period there have been some technical changes in the way cost benefit analyses are conducted. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has provided clear guidance under the public spending code, elements of which are technical such as discount rates, and some of which have changed in a way that would bring down the benefit side of most of these equations. It is a more thorough process now than previously.