Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

What Mr. Creegan is saying is that the system of establishing the cost-benefit has changed and that is where the figure comes from. Is that correct? I have some information before me which I believe I got from the National Transport Authority through the freedom of information process. It sets out the appraisal sensitivity test. The base case involves high growth and a 60-year appraisal. The figure is 4.23. On a 30-year appraisal the figure is 3.19 and on a no-growth scenario it is 1.99. The most pessimistic scenario had no growth over a 30-year appraisal. It included a two-year delay and a 25% cost over-run. Even the figure for that is 1.36. The Minister seems to suggest that the re-worked case brings the figure down to 0.8 BCR, benefit-cost ratio - Mr. Creegan has already highlighted it. In the revised case in 2015 that involves only the DART underground without the DART extension.

I get and understand the notion of the DART extension being a fundamental part of getting to where we will really get activity on the line. However, I am confused about how the numbers could change so much. The same changes do not seem to have come on the same BCR or with the same cost-benefit on the metro project. There does not seem to have been the same step change from 2010 to 2015 with the new analysis. Perhaps Mr. Creegan could help me to understand that a little better.