March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
1
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in
Ireland
This chapter presents the results of the ex post evaluation of the construction of
the M1 motorway in Ireland between the Dublin Airport Interchange and the
start of the Balbriggan Bypass.
6.1
Introduction
6.1.1
Project overview
Location
This project covers the construction of two sections of the M1 motorway in
Ireland. Figure 1 shows the route under analysis. The M1 runs along the East
Coast of Ireland and the existing N1.
Figure 1. M1 Motorway Ireland (between the Dublin airport Interchange and the
Balbriggan Bypass
Balbriggan Bypass
Lissenhall Interchange
Airport Interchange
Dublin
Source: Openstreetmap.org
The M1 corridor has been constructed in several phases over a period of 25
years. The M1 corridor belongs to the TEN-T Priority Axis 13 (Ireland – United
Kingdom – Benelux). The main objective of the investments in this corridor is
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
2
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
the reduction in journey times between Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe.
Figure 2 show the route of the Priority Axis 13.
Figure 2. Priority Axis 13: Ireland – United Kingdom – Benelux
M1
Source: EC (2005) 1
Description
This project comprises two subprojects, Section 1 and Section 2.

Section 1 – 2000/16/CPT/002: Cloghran (Dublin Airport) to Lissenhall

Section 2 – 2000/16/CPT/003: Lissenhall to Balbriggan
Section 1
Section 1 (shown in Figure 3), involved linking the pre-existing M1 motorway at
Dublin Airport to Section 2 (described below) at the Lissenhall Interchange. The
total length of this section of dual 2-lane motorway is 6.52km. The motorway
1
European Commission (2005) Trans European Transport Network Ten- T priority axis and
projects 2005.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
3
was constructed along with two interchanges (at Cloghran and Lissenhall) and
Figure 3. Section 1 – New Route - M1 (A – B), Old Route - R132 (C - D)
D
B
Existing Route
New Route
Airport
C
A
Source: Openstreemap.org
nine bridges (including one elevated bridge).
As it can be seen from the map, one of the key destinations for vehicles using
this route is Dublin Airport. This is one of the key reasons for the large increase
in traffic along this route. Moreover, this is one of the main routes down the
East Coast of Ireland to Dublin. Prior to the construction of this section of the
M1, the then-N1 (now the R132) provided the infrastructure for these trips and
was becoming heavily congested.
The Cohesion Fund contributions were used initially in the planning and preconstruction phases. This covered initial design, detailed design, site surveys and
investigation, the Environmental Impact Assessment, a public consultation
process and the preparation of contract documentation. EC contributions were
then used to cover building and construction costs, including earthworks,
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
4
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
pavement, drainage and fencing and the construction of nine bridges.
Interchanges, side roads and land acquisition were not covered.
From an environmental point of view, one of the key concerns with this section
was that it was due to run through the Broadmeadow Estuary, which was defined
in the County Development Plan as an Area of Scientific Interest because of its
Ornithological, Botanical and Zoological importance. For this reason, the plan
considered a number of possible options, including a range of tunnels and
bridges.
Section 2
Section 2 (shown in Figure 4) provides the link between Lissenhall (Section 1)
and the Balbriggan Bypass section of the M1. The Balbriggan Bypass section of
the M1 was previously opened in 1998.
The project involved building a 9.86km-long section of dual 2-lane motorway
(with hard shoulder) as well upgrading an existing interchange.
Figure 4. Section 2 – New Route - M1 (A – B), Old Route - R132 (C - D)
B
D
New Route
A
Existing Route
C
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
5
This section of the route crosses four side roads. When turned into a motorway,
it required grade separation, by means of four overbridges.
Also in this case, prior to the construction of the M1, the then-N1 (now the
R132) was carrying most of the traffic. In linking up with Section 1, Section 2
provides a better connection to Dublin, the Airport and the Port, as well as to
the South and to Northern Ireland.
The Cohesion Fund contribution was used for the building and construction
costs the motorway, including the earthworks, pavement, drainage, fencing, and
the construction of 4 bridges. It was not used for structures, interchanges, side
roads and land acquisition.
As can be seen from Table 1 the total cost of the project was €232.4m of which
€173m was eligible for Cohesion Fund assistance. Costs by section are as
follows:

Section 1: Cloghran to Lissenhall (total cost – €162.9m) Cohesion
funding of (€97.9m); and,

Section 2: Lissenhall to Balbriggan (total cost – €69.4m) Cohesion
funding of (€54.0m)
The Cohesion Fund contributed €151.8m which is approximately 88% of the
eligible project costs. Both sections were opened to traffic at the end of June
2003.
Table 1. M1 Northern Motorway Costs (€millions)
National
contribution
EU
Funding
Sub-total
Total
Sect 1
Cloghran
to
Lissenhall
52.1
12.9
97.9
110.8
162.9
Sect 2
Lissenhall
to
Balbriggan
7.2
8.2
54.0
62.2
69.4
59.4
21.2
151.8
173.0
232.4
Total
6.1.2
Eligible costs
Noneligible
costs
Context
In this section, we present the context in which this project was conceived and
developed. The first part focuses on the evolution of the socio-economic context
in the run up to the project application. In the second part, we present the
strategic policy context and the key objectives of the project.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
6
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Socio-economic context
Since joining the EU in 1973, Ireland has experienced a long period of economic
growth. Figure 5 shows the evolution of GDP per capita since the early 1980s.
GDP per capita continued to grow until 2008, when it fell due to the global
economic crisis. Confirming a well-known relationship between GDP and travel
volumes, this rapid economic growth was matched by a growth in total vehicle
kilometre, as shown in Figure 6. Over the period 1999-2009, due to a net
increase in immigration, population has grown by 19%.
Figure 5. GDP per capita (Constant Prices, Euros) in Ireland (1980 – 2009)
GDP per Capita (Constant Prices, Euros)
50,000.00
45,000.00
40,000.00
35,000.00
30,000.00
25,000.00
20,000.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
0.00
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Source: Eurostat
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
7
Figure 6. Change in Vehicle Kms (2000 – 2008)
50,000
All
45,000
Private cars
Goods vehicles
Million vehicle kms
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: CSO (2009)
Strategic policy context
The 1994-1999 Irish National Development Plan set out a strategy of achieving
greater economic and social cohesion. In this plan, the two sections being
considered in this report (otherwise known as the M1 northern Motorway) were
identified as one of the four key corridors in Ireland to be improved. We note
that they were not originally seen as two separate entities, but as a single route.
The project was then broken up into two separate subprojects for the purpose of
the Funding Applications.
The Final Report for this project states that “High quality transport infrastructure is
vital to economic development in Ireland as roads are the dominant mode of internal transport,
accounting for 90% of freight traffic and 96% of passenger traffic. Because of Ireland‟s
peripheral location, an island beyond an island, sea and air routes fulfil the same role for
Ireland as cross frontier land transport links fulfil for other EU Member States. Therefore the
attainment of social and economic advancement for Ireland requires significant improvement of
access to and from the principal exit/ entry airports and seaports. The development of the M1
route is vital in this regards as it links key commercial seaports and airports.”
The two sections are believe to fulfil this key objects on a number of levels.

European level. They are part of the Trans – European Road Network;
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
8



Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
National Level. They provide a new section of EO1 linking the major
commercial seaports at Larne, Belfast, Dublin and Rosslare and the major
airports of Dublin and Belfast;
Regional level. They form an essential part of the M1 extending orth from
Dublin and along the principal cross border route providing access to Belfast
and Northern Ireland ports; and,
Local level. They provide a more reliable service for towns in the areas of
Swords, Balbriggan, Drogheda and Dundalk.
Table 2 summarises the key objectives for both sections, as stated in both the
Funding Applications and the Final Report. Out of the following objectives,
those relevant for the cost benefit analysis are the reductions in transport costs
and improvements in the safety levels.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
9
Table 2. Objectives for the M1 Northern Motorway
Objectives
1.
Help alleviate the impact of Ireland’s peripheral location, particularly by reducing
transport costs by facilitating the competitiveness in the production and export of
goods
2.
Provide essential infrastructure support for economic (particularly industrial and
tourism) development by improving access to Dublin Port, Dublin Airport and the main
domestic markets.
3.
Improve access to the less developed Border Midland and Western Region thereby
enhancing its attractiveness as a location for investment and economic development
4.
Improve transit times, safety levels and level of service
5.
Reduce travel times and improve access between Dublin and Belfast. Both Cities
have important trading links and these should be strengthened as a result of the
improvements.
6.
Contribute to the provision of a consistent standard of motorway
7.
Overcome the inadequacies of the existing N1 in facilitating long distance
international and national traffic, as well as the longer journeys of traffic generated
locally
8.
Reduce transport costs and facilitate competitiveness in the transport of goods
9.
Improve environment quality and reduce vehicle/ pedestrian and cyclist conflict
Source: Application forms and Final Report
6.1.3
Sources
Stakeholders
To carry out the analysis, we have relied on a variety of different sources,
provided by various stakeholders in Ireland. The stakeholders that we consulted
for this evaluation were:

National Roads Authority (NRA);

Department of Finance (EU Cohesion Fund);

Representative of Fingal County Council (promoters of the project);

AECOM – Consultants (formerly Faber Maunsell) who conducted the
Year 1 ex post appraisal;

Road Safety Association (RSA), and;
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
10
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011

DG REGIO (Irish Desk Officer)
Table 3 provides the list of the documents we have used for this evaluation.
Table 3. Summary of project-related documentation
Documents
Obtained from
Funding Applications
DG REGIO
Funding Decisions and Financing Memoranda
DG REGIO
Ex ante CBA (Fingal County Council – An application of
Economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project, Airport Motorway to Rowan’s road exchange)
Irish NRA
Final Reports
DG REGIO
Ex post CBA reports
 Roughan & O’Donovan Faber Maunsell (2004a)
Cloghran - Lissenhall / 200016 CPT002
 Roughan & O’Donovan Faber Maunsell (2004b)
Lissenhall – Balbriggan / 2000IE16CPT003
DG REGIO and NRA
For the ex post analysis we have also relied on a series of information. These are
listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Primary & Secondary Data sources
Data
Source
Traffic Count Data and Traffic Speeds
http://www.n3.ie/NetworkManagement/Tr
afficCounts/TrafficCounterData/
Traffic Count Data
Consultants Own
Accident data
Post Opening
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/OurResearch/Ireland-Road-Collisions/
Accident data (pre opening)
Local Data on accidents
Appraisal Parameters
Irish National Roads Authority
One year ex post appraisal
Consultants Reports and outputs
Surveys
No surveys were commissioned as part of this work as observed ex post data on
traffic levels and journey times were available from the NRA.
Interviews
In addition to obtaining the relevant documentation and data, we had a meeting
with key stakeholders in Ireland. The meeting had four key objectives:
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
11

discuss the role and usefulness of the ex ante CBA in the decisionmaking process that led to the development of the project under
evaluations;

clarify our understanding of the calculations and assumptions
underpinning the ex ante CBA;

identify missing data needed for the ex post analysis and make
agreements relative to the provision or sourcing of this information;
and,

discuss the project‟s wider economic, social and environmental impacts
which are not captured by the standard core CBA.
Throughout this evaluation, we have also received regular support and advice (via
email and telephone) from the NRA in Ireland.
6.1.4
Issues and challenges with the evaluation
As a full ex post evaluation had already been carried out following the opening of
the two sections of the M1 motorway the evaluation involved updating this work
to take account of the changes that have happened since 2003. One of the key
challenges was in using data and models that had been developed in 2004, and
updating them in a consistent manner.
6.2
Ex post cost-benefit analysis
This section presents the results of the ex post cost-benefit analysis for the two
subprojects.
In May 2004, one year after the opening, a comprehensive ex post appraisal was
completed for both sections of the M1. This was in line with current Irish
guidelines, according to which a Post Project Review should be completed for all
projects costing more than €30m.
An alliance of consultants (Roughan & O‟Donovan and Faber Maunsell – now
AECOM) completed the Economic Assessment. The economic evaluation
reports, one for each section, note that that “one objective of the phase 7 [Ex Post]
assessments has been to determine how the observed benefits of a project compare with those
predicted at Phase 3 [Route Selection] and Phase 4 [Preliminary Design]. For the
current project, this is difficult due to the length of time since undertaking the phase 4 modelling
and the significant changes in the recommended parameter values in the interim. As such a
direct comparison [with the ex ante analysis] would be of limited value to the work”
The ex post reports that were produced in 2004 for the two sections did not
draw on the results if the ex ante cost benefits analysis.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
12
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
First, we present the results from the 2004 ex post appraisal (Year One ex post
evaluation). We then show how these results change when considering additional
ex post traffic data for the period 2004-2009 (Year Five ex post evaluation).
6.2.1
Headline results from the analysis
The key economic benefits from this project were the reduction in travel costs
(both journey times and vehicle operating costs) and the improvement of safety
on the route. Before this project, the N1 route was heavily congested. The
project has played a significant role in reducing congestion, hence time savings
are one of the main benefits in the ex post analysis.
The key costs of this project considered in the ex post appraisal are construction
costs and maintenance costs. It should be noted that in the original ex ante
appraisal maintenance costs were omitted from the analysis.
Economic analysis
Year One ex post evaluation
Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 below summarise the results of the one year ex
post appraisal for, respectively, Section 1, Section 2 and the entire project. The ex
post analysis considers both a Low case and a High case, determined by the
assumption about future traffic levels. The evaluation assumed a project
economic life of 30 years. In the original analysis, the NPV had been calculated
using a 4% discount rate. We have updated this analysis by using a 5.5% discount
rate, in accordance with EC guidelines. The original ex post evaluation included
a value for the shadow price of capital (or marginal cost of public funds). The
implication of such a shadow price is that the welfare cost of public funds is
greater than the financial costs. The use of a shadow price of capital was
common practice in Irish appraisal in 2004. At present a shadow price factor of
unity is applied to government funds and labour. Our update to the one year ex
post appraisal therefore uses a shadow price of capital of unity. This results in
the NPV, BCR and IRR all increasing relative to the ex post analysis conducted
for the NRA.
The results indicate that both sections offer very good value for money.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
13
Table 5. One year ex post Appraisal: Section 1 (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
2,643
2,877
Economic IRR (%)
55
56
Benefit-cost ratio
16.9
18.35
Net Present Value (€m)
Source: Ex Post Report for M1 Northern Motorway: Contract 1: Cloghran to Lissenghall
Table 6. One year ex post Appraisal: Section 2 (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
Net Present Value (€m)
652
755
Economic IRR (%)
39
42
Benefit-cost ratio
10.4
11.9
Source: Ex Post Report for M1 Northern Motorway: Contract 2: Lissenhall to Balbriggan
Table 7. One year ex post Appraisal: Total (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
3632.4
3295
Economic IRR (%)
52
53
Benefit-cost ratio
15.04
16.45
Net Present Value (€m)
Source: Own calculation
Year five ex post evaluation
As mentioned above, we have updated the analysis carried out in 2004 with more
up-to-date values, including outturn traffic data for the period 2004-2009.
The results are summarised in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10. The updated
analysis shows that the two subprojects offer an even greater value of money
than what identified in the one year ex post evaluation.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
14
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 8. Five year ex post Appraisal: Section 1 (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
3082
3160
Economic IRR (%)
56
56
Benefit-cost ratio
19.5
20.1
Net Present Value (€m)
Source: Ex Post Report for M1 Northern Motorway: Contract 1: Cloghran to Lissenghall updated with
outturn data
Table 9. Five year ex post Appraisal: Section 2 (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
Net Present Value (€m)
722
745
Economic IRR (%)
42
42
Benefit-cost ratio
11.4
11.8
Source: Ex Post Report for M1 Northern Motorway: Contract 2: Lissenhall to Balbriggan updated with
outturn data
Table 10. Five year ex post Appraisal: Total (€m, 2002 prices)
Low Case
High Case
3805
3905
Economic IRR (%)
53
53
Benefit-cost ratio
17.2
17.6
Net Present Value (€m)
Source: Own calculation
Annexe I provides the detailed results of the analysis
Financial analysis
The project does not generate any operating revenues, however, for
completeness we have carried out a financial analysis of the project. Table 11
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
15
presents both the return on investment and the return on capital (2002 prices,
5% discount rate, 30 year appraisal period). Clearly as no revenues are generated
the FNPV indicators are negative. Furthermore, as no revenues are generated at
any point in the lifetime of the project neither of the Financial IRR indicators can
be calculated. The lack of revenues also means that the low and high growth
results are the same.
Table 11. Summary of ex post financial analysis (2002 prices)
Low/High case
Net Present Value – Investment (€m)
Financial IRR – Investment (%)
Net Present Value – Capital (€m)
Financial IRR – Capital (%)
-234.8
N/A
-81.4
N/A
Source: Own calculation
Wider socio-economic impacts
It is difficult to establish a link between the project and wider socio-economic
impacts as the project was implemented during a period of rapid growth in the
Irish economy and significant in-migration. It is however clear that the project
has formed an important component of the general upgrade of the Ireland‟s
transport network. The construction of the project was also a key factor in
facilitating the construction of the second terminal at Dublin Airport.
Furthermore there is evidence of substantial growth in the towns adjacent to the
project and where the congestion levels have dropped as a result of the M1
Northern Motorway.
6.2.2
Traffic volumes
Traffic volumes largely influence the benefits of a transport project. We first
present the traffic volume assumptions that underpinned the Year One ex post
evaluation. We then show the updated outturn data for the period 2004-2009 and
the assumptions we have used for the Year Five ex post evaluation.
Year One ex post evaluation
For this evaluation, traffic counts were undertaken at 13 locations along the
existing route. Traffic counts for the new sections of the M1 were taken from the
NRA traffic counter sites. The existing route was split into 12 separate links.
The proportions for different vehicle types were estimated based on the observed
data for two of these links. The proportions used for the analysis were as follows:
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
16
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011

Cars – 79.1%

LGVs – 7.9%

HGVs (2 categories) – 11.2%

PSVs – 1.8%
The 2003 traffic volumes were then increased using the NRA traffic growth
factors, shown in Table 12. The table shows the growth factors for vehicle-kms
for different types of vehicles, year bands and scenarios (Low case and High
case).
Table 12. Traffic Growth Factors
Cars and LGV
HGV1 AND HGV2
PSV
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
2002-2007
2.999
4.187
2.702
3.781
0.340
0.982
2007-2012
2.167
2.884
2.277
3.043
0.354
1.006
2012-2017
1.504
1.943
1.584
2.052
0.428
1.090
2017-2022
1.226
1.554
1.476
1.871
0.518
1.190
2022-2027
0.921
1.201
1.371
1.759
0.604
1.288
2027-2032
0.677
0.905
1.267
1.628
0.660
1.360
2032-2037
0.534
0.727
1.163
1.490
0.660
1.360
Source: NRA Appraisal Guidelines
Year Five ex post evaluation
We have updated the data used for the Year One appraisal using actual traffic
volume data. The NRA maintains a network of approximately 140 traffic
counters on National Roads throughout Ireland.2 We have obtained information
on Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) in both directions for the two sections
of the M1 under analysis.
Table 13 shows the updated historic traffic data we have used. As can be seen
the motorway is well used with around 80,000 on Section 1 and just over 50,000
vehicles per day on Section 2. We have also validated the data, using data from a
Quality Bus study in the area. The vehicle category proportions were taken from
2
http://www.n3.ie/NetworkManagement/TrafficCounts/TrafficCounterData/
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
17
NRA guidelines and validated using the known percentages of HGVs taken from
the traffic count data.
Table 13. AADT(Vehicles) along the new sections of M1
Year
Section 1
Section 2
2004
Not Available
41,869
2005
Not Available
Not Available
2006
70,752
49,253
2007
77,856
51,821
2008
80,232
53,479
2009
79,847
52,543
Source: http://www.n3.ie/NetworkManagement/TrafficCounts/TrafficCounterData/


In Section 1, over the period 2003-2007, traffic grew by 9.8% per annum.
This was considerably higher than the traffic forecasts used for the Year One
ex post evaluation. However on average in the period 2008-2009 traffic
volumes fell by –1%. This was below the forecasts.
In Section 2, traffic grew at a slower rate than in section 1. The average
annual growth rate was 5.5% in the period 2003-2007. This was still higher
than the original forecast. However, during the period 2008-2009 traffic
volumes only grew by 0.7%, significantly below the forecast.
Figure 7 shows both historic traffic growth (in vehicle kilometres) and the traffic
projection for the period after 2009, for both ex post analyses that have been
undertaken. We have used the same growth rate used in the NRA‟s Year One ex
post evaluation as the NRA has not yet released updated forecasts.
In order to carry out the appraisal, we have converted AADT in annual vehiclekms using the following formula
VehicleKms  AADT * 365* SectionLength
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
18
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 7. Growth in vehicle kms over complete project
1500
1400
Vehicle kms (millions)
1300
1200
1100
1000
1 year ex post low
900
1 year ex post High
5 year ex post Low
800
5 year ex post High
700
2031
2029
2027
2025
2023
2021
2019
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
600
Source: Own calculation
6.2.3
Costs
One-off costs
Table 14 provides a break down of the outturn costs by cost category for both
sections of the M1 Northern Motorway. Whilst Section 2 is longer (9.56 km)
than Section 1 (6.52 km), the latter was more expensive. This is because nine
bridges were required to bypass the urban area of Swords. This included a
specialist bridge that was needed to bypass the environmentally sensitive estuary.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
19
Table 14. Outturn costs for both sections (€m, resource costs, 2002 prices)
Year
Section 1
Design Costs
Section 2
Total
3.5
3.3
6.8
36.9
6.9
43.8
Construction
122.4
59.1
181.5
Total
162.8
69.3
232.1
Land Acquisition
Source: Ex Post Report and Financial Reports
Only Level 1 unit costs are available for the M1 Northern Motorway. As can be
seen from Table 15 these are higher for Section 1 than for Section 2 due to the
larger number of structures in that section of the route.
Table 15. Unit costs (€m, resource costs, 2002 prices)
Road Indicators
Unit
Section 1
Section 2
Combined
24.99
7.04
14.19
Level 1
'All in' unit cost
EURm/km
Source: Own calculation
Ongoing costs
Maintenance costs were not included in the ex ante appraisal nor in the Year One
ex post evaluation.
However, we have included them in the Year Five ex post evaluation, using the
parameter (cost per kilometre) provided by the NRA‟s appraisal guidelines and
considering the differences in length of road to maintain between the do-nothing
counterfactual and the do-something scenario.
Table 16 summarises the difference between counterfactual and do-something
scenario.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
20
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 16. Lengths of the Existing Network (Do – Nothing) and New Network (DoSomething)
Do – Nothing
Do- Something
10.39 km Single Carriageway
The Do – Nothing scenario +
4.61km Dual Carriageway
16.38km Motorway
0.82km Motorway
Source: Ex post evaluation reports
Based on these values, we have calculated that the construction of these two
sections of the M1 has led to an increase in maintenance costs equal to €0.36m in
NPV terms. We have included this cost in the Year Five ex post evaluation.
6.2.4
Direct benefits
In this section we present the direct benefits of the project, namely time savings
and vehicle operating costs (VOC) savings. For each, we present both the results
of the Year One ex post evaluation and the updated values of the Year Five ex
post evaluation.
Time savings
Journey time savings are the largest source of benefits from this project. The
construction of these sections has brought much need relief to a highly
congested part of the road network.
Year One ex post appraisal
Journey times were calculated using the COBA model, taking into account the
types of roads, speeds, geometry and traffic volumes. In addition, the
consultants undertook a number of journey time surveys on the new M1 and on
the old N1 road to validate the modelling results.
The model used the following inputs to calculate journey time savings:

traffic volumes;

proportions of business and leisure purpose journeys;

vehicle occupancy rates by vehicle purpose and type, and traffic flow
group;

values of time by purpose (business and leisure);

growth factors for the values of time.
To calculate journey time savings, the traffic volume data was split into vehicle
categories (car, LGV, HGV and PSV) as well as journey purpose (business or
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
21
leisure). In addition, vehicle-kms were converted into passenger-kms using the
NRA‟s standard vehicle occupancy rates. This was done because the value of
time is provided on a per-passenger basis.
The initial values of time used were €17.55 per person per hour for business trips
and €7.06 per person per hour for leisure trips. We note that commuting trips are
normally treated as leisure trips. These values were then increased on an annual
basis using the growth rates shown in Table 17.
Table 17. Value of time Growth Factors (per annum)
Year
Both business and leisure time
2002 - 2010
1.0270
2011 - 2015
1.0237
2016 and thereafter
1.0229
Source: NRA Appraisal Guidelines
Year Five ex post appraisal
We have updated the COBA modelling using updated traffic data, while keeping
the other inputs constant. We have used the data on the average traffic speeds
collected at the two traffic counters on the M1 to validate the average speeds
along the route. The updated analysis shows that time savings benefits are higher
than what was originally estimated in the 2003 ex post evaluation.
Table 18 summarises the results.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
22
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 18. Summary of ex post time savings benefits (€m, 2002 prices)
Year One ex post
Year Five ex post
Low
High
Low
High
Section 1
891
963
1,050
1,097
Section 2
682
756
747
768
1,574
1,719
1,797
1,865
Total
Source: Ex Post Reports for M1 Northern Motorway (for Year One analysis) and own calculations (for Year
Five analysis)
Vehicle Operating Costs
This project has also had a beneficial impact on vehicle operating costs, although
to a much lesser extent if compared with time savings. The VOC savings
contribute to fulfilling one of the key objectives of this project, which aimed at
improving transport efficiency.
Year One ex post appraisal
The VOC calculation was done separately for non-fuel costs and for fuel-costs
using the NRA guidelines. For non-fuel related costs, the formula used to
calculate is:
C  a1 
b1
V
where:

C is the operating cost per vehicle-km

V is the average link speed (obtain from the COBA model)

a1 and b1 are vehicle-specific parameters.
For fuel-related costs instead, the formula is the following:
C  a  bV  cV 2
The values of the equation parameters (a1, b1, a, b and c) have been defined by the
NRA. They vary by vehicle type but they do not change over time. Table 19
summarises the parameters used in the analysis.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
23
Table 19. a1 and b1 parameters for non fuel costs and a, b and c parameters for fuel
costs (2002 prices, resource costs, euros)
Non fuel
Fuel Parameters
Category
a1
b1
a
b
c
Car
5.11
26.10
5.15
-0.08623
0.000585
LGV
7.28
64.29
6.99
-0.08623
0.000585
OGV1
14.83
224.60
16.195
-0.26155
0.000907
OGV2
16.56
454.97
32.86
-0.51011
0.003478
PSV
30.71
514.89
26.38
-0.41334
0.002606
Source: NRA appraisal guidelines
Year Five ex post appraisal
We have updated the VOC savings calculation using outturn traffic volumes. The
other parameters have not changed. As in the case of time savings, the updated
analysis shows that the VOC savings are higher than what was originally
calculated in the Year One ex post evaluation.
Table 20 summarises the results.
Table 20. Summary of ex post VOC benefits (€m, 2002 prices)
Year One ex post
Year Five ex post
Low
High
Low
High
Section 1
59
65
72
76
Section 2
20
23
31
32
Total
79
88
103
98
Source: Ex Post Reports for M1 Northern Motorway (for Year One analysis) and own calculations (for Year
Five analysis)
6.2.5
Externalities
Safety
The project has also led to a reduction in the total number of accidents. As for
direct benefits, we first present the analysis that was carried out for the Year One
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
24
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
ex post evaluation and then show the updated results from the Year Five ex post
analysis.
Year One ex post appraisal
For this analysis, the total number of accidents was calculated by taking the NRA
accident rates, updating them with observed local accident rates. These
parameters provide the number of personal injury accidents per million vehicle
kms by road type and speed. The NRA guidelines assume an annual reduction
factor, to take into account a general downward trend in accident rates and
severity. However, the analysis of historical data showed that this trend did not
exist in the study area. Therefore, Roughan & O‟Donovan Faber Maunsell
decided not to apply this correction. We also note that damage-only accidents
were not included in the evaluation. Table 21 shows the historic number of
accidents along the old route (N1).
Table 21. Observed accident rates (before opening)
Section
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Section 1
10
6
4
12
7
Section 2
17
9
15
10
17
Total
27
15
19
22
24
Source: Roughan & O’Donovan Faber Maunsell (2004a)
Accident costs and cost growth factors were taken from the NRA parameter
guidelines. These are summarised in Table 22 and Table 23.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
25
Table 22. Accident costs (€, 2002 prices)
Fatality
Serious injury
Slight injury
Damage only
1,694,481
190,400
14,681
n/a
312
194
118
57
Urban
8,103
4,342
2,562
1,833
Rural
13,741
6,263
4,153
2,737
Motorway
17,480
14,915
7546
2631
Urban
19,83
165
60
4
Rural
1,880
462
60
4
Motorway
2,752
434
60
4
Personal cost
Insurance /
admin
Damage to property
Police costs
Source: NRA appraisal guidelines
Table 23. Accident Costs growth factors per annum
Years
Rate
2002-2010
1.0270
2011 -2015
1.0237
2016 onwards
1.0229
Source: NRA appraisal Guidelines
Based on the modelling, the consultants estimated that, depending on the
scenario considered, between 228 and 265 accidents in total over 30 years would
be avoided on Section 1, while the reduction in accidents on Section 2 would be
between 44 and 60 accidents. These values were then applied to the accident
costs to calculate the safety benefits delivered by the project.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
26
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Year Five ex post evaluation
We have updated the Year One ex post evaluation by using actual traffic
volumes, updated speeds and actual accident rates.
Table 24 shows the observed accident data for the period 2005-2008. This
shows that across the new network the accident rate is on average lower than the
observed accident rates before the new road was opened. This suggests that,
despite the growth in vehicle-kms and the addition of a new stretch of road, the
accident rate on the network has actually declined. This is consistent with the
observation that motorways are typically safer roads than other road types due to
a mixture of grade separation and segregated directional carriageways.
Table 24. Observed Accident rate per annum (2005 – 2008)
Section
2005
2006
2007
2008
Section 1
(N1 equivalent)
3
2
1
6
Section 1 (M1)
2
1
n.a.
3
Section 2
(N1 equivalent)
3
2
1
5
Section 2 (M1)
2
0
1
3
Total
10
5
3
16
Source: Road Safety Authority
(http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/)
The updated COBA modeling shows that, based on the observed accident rates,
the total number of accident saved is larger than estimated in the Year One ex
post evaluation. According to the updated analysis, the total number of accidents
saved over 30 years should be between 322 and 340 on Section 1 and about 56
on Section 2. We applied these values to the cost factors presented above to
calculate the total safety benefits.
Table 25 summarises the results.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
27
Table 25. Summary of ex post safety benefits (€m, 2002 prices)
Year One ex post
Year Five ex post
Low
High
Low
High
Section 1
21
25
31
32
Section 2
17
21
21
23
Total
38
46
52
55
Source: Ex Post Reports for M1 Northern Motorway (for Year One analysis) and own calculations (for Year
Five analysis)
Other externalities
The framework set up for the ex post analysis did not consider any other
externality, positive or negative.


Environmental impacts were addressed in a separate Environmental Impact
Assessment. The mitigation measure that were implemented, and their costs,
are described in the next section.
The transport model calculated changes in fuel consumption. However, the
ex ante appraisal and the Year One ex post evaluation did not include a
calculation for changes in CO2 emissions. This calculation has since become
a requirement in Irish appraisal practice. For consistency with the previous
ex post analysis, we have not estimated this benefit. Nonetheless, the results
from the model indicate that the do-something scenarios generate benefits in
terms of reduced fuel use. This result indicates that in the do-something
scenario, CO2 emission would be less than that in the do-nothing
counterfactual.
Utilisation
This section of the M1 was built as a 2 lane dual carriageway at motorway
standard. It was designed to allow it to be converted into a 3 lane motorway at
some point in the future. We have used the congestion reference threshold
indicator from UK standards3 as a measure of the theoretical capacity of the M1.
This formula utilises data on the traffic flow composition and how the traffic
flow varies from one hour to another. Based on the M1‟s design standard the
3
DMRB (1997) Traffic Flow Ranges for the Use in the Assessment of New Rural Roads. TA 46/97.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol5/section1/ta4697.pdf
[accessed
25th
September 2010]
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
28
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
estimate for the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the
carriageway is likely to be „congested‟ in the peak periods on an average day is
65,000. If the road were to be widened in the future this would increase to an
estimate of 97,000 AADT. As can be seen from Table 13 traffic flows on
Section 1 (the southern section near to Dublin Airport) exceed this measure,
whilst that on Section 2 is lower than this threshold. The road in its existing
standard is therefore approaching capacity, even though it is only 7 years into its
lifetime. Traffic growth, particularly on the southern section of the route, has
been much higher than was originally anticipated.
Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
The principle element of uncertainty in this ex post study is that associated with
benefits that have yet to be realised. These benefits are intrinsically linked to the
travel demands. To this end we have used the Ireland national road traffic
growth estimates to give a high and low estimate of future traffic volumes and
benefits. Broadly speaking there is about a 0.3% per annum difference in the
respective traffic growth rates (see Table 12).
As can be seen from the preceding analysis both the high and low NPV estimates
are large. The low estimate of the NPV is €3.8 billion, whilst the high estimate is
€3.9 billion. These estimates are similarly and arise as a consequence of the large
traffic growth prior to 2009 (and this occurred over the whole of Ireland) and the
fact that the traffic growth forecasts under the low and high scenarios are similar
(see Figure 7).
As a consequence of the similarity in low and high growth rates we have
undertaken an additional sensitivity test. This is a very conservative test. We
have assumed that traffic volumes and benefits will not grow beyond 2009 (the
last year for which we have ex post data). This test gives an NPV of €2.7 billion,
a BCR of 12.65 and an IRR of 52%. Clearly the M1 is a very good project as, in
this most unlikely of pessimistic outcomes, the M1 shows a very good economic
return.
6.2.6
Wider socio-economic impacts
In this section, we present the ex post impacts of this project over and above
those considered in the core CBA. The impacts presented in this section were
identified in our discussion with key stakeholders.
As part of a key TEN-T route, the key objectives of the project were:

to improve access both internally within Ireland and externally north of
the border to Northern Ireland; and,

to reduce the transport costs for access to and from key airports and
ports in Ireland.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
29
This project is relatively small (16 km of new motorway) with respect to the
overall level of investment in the transport network in Ireland since the start of
Cohesion Fund. This makes it difficult to establish a causal relationship between
this project and the wider impacts of the investment on the economy, society and
the environment. However, as the ex post evaluation has identified significant
travel time and VOC savings, especially during a period of sustained traffic
growth, we can assume that the project has contributed to fulfilling these
strategic objectives.
As noted by one of the stakeholders, the investment in the M1 had already been
planned prior to the availability of contributions from the Cohesion Fund.
However, the Fund helped bring forward these investments and therefore
support Ireland‟s rapid economic growth more effectively.
Socio-economic impacts
While it is difficult to pinpoint the specific socio-economic contributions of this
investment, the stakeholders provided anecdotal evidence of some positive
impacts.



Dublin Airport has been experiencing an exponential growth in passengers.
However, before the construction of the M1, the Dublin Airport expansion
was in doubt due to the need to have high quality transport access. At the
time, this was an issue due to the congestion levels on the old route.
Improving the speed and reliability of the route to the airport was one of the
contributing factors to Fingal County Council‟s decision in 2006 to give the
go-ahead for the construction of the second terminal.
The opening of the M1 and the expansion of the airport have contributed to
the rapid growth of the town of Swords. The two sections of the M1
essentially provide a bypass around Swords for vehicles travelling from the
North down to Dublin and from the south towards the border. The Irish
census data shows that in 2002 the resident population in Swords was
27,175. By 2006 this had increased to 33,998, an increase of over 25% in
four years, well above the national average. Swords acts as a base for a large
number of the airport staff.
The opening of the M1 also had a negative impact. The reduced travel time
have led to people moving further out of Dublin. This has had a knock on
effect on house prices in the conurbations along the route, leading to local
people being priced-out of the housing market.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
30
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Environmental impacts
An extensive Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out for this project
in March 1998. This detailed the required mitigation measures that were to be
put in place. These are summarised below.
On both sections:




The motorway was landscaped with large numbers of trees and shrubs in
order to help the project blend into the existing landscape whilst preserving
views for motorway users. The landscaping, which provides new habitat for
the local flora and fauna, has added more hedges and vegetation cover than
was lost during the construction phase.
Culverts were provided to allow badgers and other small animals to cross the
motorway. A full time ecologist was also based on site during construction
to help protect the wildlife and vegetation.
Barriers in the form of walls and earth mounds were provided at certain
locations to reduce the projected maximum noise level.
Archaeologists surveyed the route before construction. They uncovered a
large Iron Age early Christian site about 200 metres west of Blake‟s Cross.
On Section 1:

For the bridge crossing the Broadmeadow Estuary, which is a protected area
because of its large population of migrationary birds, as well as resident
swans and other birds, plants and animals. A number of measures were put
in place to protect the Estuary, specifically:

two petrol interceptors were installed north and south of the Estuary to
block any oil spillage from the motorway;

the bridge was designed so to protect the marsh area;

asbestos was removed from the site; and,

Ponds were installed to protect the watercourses along the project road.
The Final Report quantified the cost of these measures, as summarised in Table
26.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
31
Table 26. Estimated cost of the environmental measures (€m, 2002 prices))
Section
Cost
Section 1
2.8
Section 2
5.9
Total
8.8
Source: Final Reports (Both sections)
Other projects
Since the opening of the M1 Northern Motorway between Cloghran and
Balbriggan Bypass a number of additional sections have been opened along the
route. The M1 now provides a complete motorway standard link from Dublin to
Northern Ireland.
6.3
Review of ex ante cost-benefit analysis
This section presents the results of the ex ante cost-benefit analysis which was
prepared to support the funding applications. The original ex ante CBA was
produced for the two Sections together. As noted, the project was divided into
two sections to aid in the phasing of the funding for the route.
To support the Funding Application, Fingal County Council carried out a full ex
ante appraisal. The original document states that “the department of Finance has
recognised the need for proper programme appraisal and evaluation. In its stated guidelines, it
recommends that new projects should only be undertaken where there is a clearly established
public need” (Final County Council). Fingal County Council prepared a detailed
report, which describes the full CBA analysis.
6.3.1
Quality of ex ante CBA
At the time the ex ante CBA was undertaken (1995) the analysis was regarded as
„state-of-the-art‟ in Ireland. It was unusual at that time for CBAs to be
undertaken during the development of a transport project.
The ex ante appraisal was set up as a six link model, four links on the existing
network and two links on the new planned M1. Table 27 provides the details.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
32
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 27. Description of ex ante network
Road Type
Links
Section
Existing
Network
Link 1
1
Airport to Swords
Link 2
1
Swords to Lissenhall Interchange
Link 3
2
Lissenhall interchange to Blakes Cross
Link 4
2
Blakes Cross to Five Roads
Link 5
1
Airport Interchange to Lissenhall Interchange
Link 6
2
Lissenhall Interchange to Rowan’s Road
M1
Description
Source: Ex ante Report – Fingal County Council
In the analysis the „do-something‟ option (the construction of links 5 and 6) was
compared with the „do-nothing‟ (the existing network – links 1 to 4). The
analysis considered the following costs:

land acquisition;

planning and design;

construction; and

supervision.
The following benefits were included:

time savings;

VOC savings; and,

reduction in total number of accidents on the network.
Table 28 summarises the key assumptions underpinning the ex ante analysis.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
33
Table 28. Summary of the key assumptions used in the ex ante CBA
Key Assumptions
Summary
Discount Rate
5% (as recommended by the Department of Finance (1994).
Other discount rates of 10% and 8% were also tested.
Appraisal Period
30 years (2000 – 2030) - (but 31 years appears to have been
used). Construction phase (1997 – 2000)
Opening Date
It was assumed that the opening date was going to be 2000
Base year
1994
Currency
Irish Pounds (Punts)
Source: Ex ante Report – Fingal County Council
Our review of the ex ante CBA is that the analysis meets best practice in
appraisal for that time (1995). Against current standards however the CBA itself
would be viewed as acceptable but the traffic modelling input to it would be
regarded as inadequate. By today‟s standards in our view it would be necessary
to:



6.3.2
model junction delays;
model re-assignment of traffic between the N1 and the M1 (instead of using
a fixed diversion approach as was used in the ex ante analysis); and
undertake an assessment of induced traffic, even if that assessment
determined that induced traffic was unlikely to be an issue.
Headline results from the analysis
Table 29 provides a summary of the ex ante results for both sections. The
analysis shows that the project as a whole was expected to achieve a high value
for money.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
34
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 29. Results of ex ante cost benefit analysis (IR£m, 1994 prices)
Net Present Value
Economic IRR
(%)
BCR
303
16.08%
5.49
Do-something
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
6.3.3
Key aspects of ex ante CBA
In this section we discuss the key aspects underpinning the ex ante cost-benefit
analysis.
Costs
The project costs included in the ex ante appraisal totalled IR£ 80.6m at 1994
prices (equivalent to €144m at 2002 prices), summarised in Table 30. The figures
were calculated on the basis of previous highway contracts undertaken in Fingal
County. The ex ante analysis does not consider any other cost, such as changes in
annual maintenance costs.
Table 30. Summary of estimated ex ante construction costs (IR£m, 1994 prices).
Completed in 1995 and then updated to Euro million, 2002 prices
IR£m, 1994
€m, 2002 prices
% of total
construction
cost
Construction Cost
55
97
68.2%
Land and property Costs
18
32
21.8%
Planning and design costs
6
11
10.5%
Supervision
2
4
2.7%
TOTAL
81
144
100%
Cost category
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
Note: Rounding leads to slight differences between the reported total and a summation of the constituent
elements.
These costs were then updated for the submission to the EU for funding. The
total cost for the whole route, excluding expenditure during phase one which was
completed prior to submission for funding, was estimated to be €170.5m. This
was broken down as follows:
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS

€102.5m for M1 Cloghran to Lissenhall (Section 1)

€68.0 for M1 Lissenhall to Balbriggan ( Section 2)
35
Traffic Volumes
As noted above, traffic volumes are one of the key inputs needed to calculate the
benefit of the project.
Traffic flows were determined for the base year (1994) using traffic count and
origin destination survey data completed in 1993 and 1994. It was recognised
that traffic was growing at a higher rate for traffic to and from Dublin airport
compared to the national trend. The ex ante analysis assumed an annual 3.4%
growth in traffic from opening in 2000 to 2020. Based on these projections of
potential future traffic levels it was proposed to build a dual 2-lane motorway
with hard shoulder, to allow it to be extended in the future.
Table 31 shows the predicted AADT on the two Sections for year 2020. The ex
post outturn traffic data presented in the previous section shows that if the
current trend continues the forecasts used in the ex ante analysis will be easily
surpassed. The primary reason for this underestimation is the unanticipated large
growth, since 1995, in traffic volumes in Ireland (due to higher than expected
economic and population growth).
Table 31. Predicted AADT on the M1 in the year 2020
Road Section
AADT (Vehicles)
Section 1
45,000
Section 2
30,000
Source: Fingal County Council M1 northern Motorway EIA
Benefits
Table 32 provides a summary of the benefits included in the ex ante appraisal.
These were reported in Irish punds (1994 prices) in the original ex ante study and
for ease of comparison we have converted them to euros (2002 prices). We
discuss each in turn in the remainder of this section.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
36
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 32. Summary of estimated ex ante costs and benefits (IR£m, 1994 prices)
discounted by 5%
Benefit category
Estimated benefits
% of PVB
Time savings
292
78.6
VOC savings
28
7.5%
Accidents reduction
51
13.9%
TOTAL
371
100.0%
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
Time savings
Time savings are the largest source of benefits included in the ex ante CBA. They
accounts for 78.7% of the total benefits present value. This should be expected
given that the project was being justified on the grounds of reducing journey
times along the route.
The methodology used to calculate time savings is similar to the approach used in
the ex post analyses, albeit with different traffic volumes and different
parameters.
Table 33 provides a summary of the value of time used, the vehicle occupancy
rates and the proportions of different types of vehicles. The values of time were
assumed to grow at 3% per annum in line with expected GDP.
Table 33. Values of Time (IR£, 1994 prices), vehicle proportions and occupancy
rates
Type of Vehicle
Cost £ per hour
per occupant
Occupancy of
vehicles
Proportion of
vehicles
Car (Business)
£7.17
1.24
0.12
Car (Leisure)
£1.79
1.53
0.66
LGV and HGV
£7.17
1.28
0.22
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
37
VOC savings
Vehicle operating costs were calculated for fuel consumption and non fuel
consumption, as in the ex post calculations. The results indicate that compared
to the other benefits these were undervalued in the ex ante appraisal.
Safety
The number of future accidents was calculated using the national historic figures
on Personal Injury Accidents (PIA), which provided accident rates per million
vehicle-kms. The COBA model was then used to estimate the number of
accidents by type of road and severity according to accident rates for the UK.
Table 34 provides a summary.
Table 34. Accident and casualty rates
Link Type
PIA per million
vehicle-km
Casualties per Accident
Fatal
Serious
Minor
Existing
Rural
0.23
0.068
0.499
1.409
New
Motorway
0.11
0.048
0.367
1.233
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
The predicted accident rates were then multiplied by unit accident costs (see
Table 35). The analysis does not include damage-only accidents and does not
include a value for police and administrative costs.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
38
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Table 35. Accident costs for ex ante analysis (IR£, 1994 prices)
Personal costs
Unit cost per type
of road
Fatality
834,718
Serious injury
29,841
Slight injury
2,880
Accident cost
Existing rural
road
New motorway
90,401
65,158
Source: Fingal County Council – An application of economic appraisal methods to the northern motorway
project
The ex ante analysis estimated that, compared to the counterfactual, over the
course of the entire appraisal period the project would have avoided 60 fatal
injuries, 437 serious injuries and 1,233 minor injuries.
When compared with the actual outturn data these estimates appear exceedingly
optimistic.
Sensitivity analysis
A comprehensive set of sensitivity tests were conducted to explore the range of
results achievable. These are summarised in Table 36. Test 1 formed the basis
for the central case
All the tests, with the exception of Test 4 (zero growth), indicate a positive NPV.
Moreover, the analysis identified that even Test 4 would have retuned a positive
NPV if a 5% test discount rate had been used, as recommended by the
Department of Finance in Ireland. Test 1 that was also used in the
Environmental Impact study was believed at the time to be conservative.
Overall, the sensitivity analysis confirmed that the project offered good value for
money.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
39
Table 36. Summary of sensitivity analyses (IR£m, 1994 prices)
Test
Title
Assumptions
NPV (Discount Rate)
10%
8%
5%
IRR (%)
1
Basic Test
Traffic Growth, 3% income
growth, fuel price growth
72.4
131.2
303.2
16.08
2
Basic +
fixed fuel
price
Traffic Growth, 3% income
growth, fixed fuel price
71.9
130.6
301.9
16.04
3
Zero Value
leisure
Traffic Growth, 3% income
growth, fuel price growth
36.4
76.8
195.3
13.52
4
Zero
Growth
Zero traffic and income
growth, fixed fuel price
-17.95
-9.5
14.1
6.53
5
High Time
Savings
Basic assumptions with
vehicle operating speeds
increased by on proposed
network
86.9
151.8
340.2
17.15
6
Low Time
Savings
Basic assumptions with
vehicle operating speeds
increased by on existing
network
46.4
93.2
231.5
14.15
7
High
Accidents
Basic assumptions with
‘combined’ accident rate on
existing network
92.5
159.7
354.5
17.57
8
Low
Accident
Value
Basic Assumptions with
accident costs decreased by
25%
67.4
124.1
290.3
15.69
9
Low
Income
Growth
Traffic growth, 2% income
growth, fuel price growth
50.8
96.9
230.5
14.80
Source: Fingal County Council (ex ante appraisal report)
6.4
Differences between ex post and ex ante analysis
In this section, we compare the results of the ex ante and ex post analysis,
highlighting the reasons for any discrepancies.
Table 37 provides a comparison between the ex ante and ex post analyses. As
can be seen from the results in the table the values are very different between the
initial study (completed in 1995) and for the two sets of ex post studies. Whilst
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
40
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
the investment costs increased beyond those estimated in 1995 the benefits have
more than compensated for this. The net result is that the NPV, the IRR and the
BCR are all higher than was anticipated.
Table 37. Comparison of ex ante and ex post economic CBA for the full route (2002
prices, Euro millions)
Ex ante
Ex Post Year 1
Ex post 2009
Low case
High case
Low case
High case
Net
Present
Value
534
3,295
3,633
3,805
3,905
Economic
IRR (%)
16
53
53
53
53
Benefitcost ratio
5.49
16.45
15.04
17.19
17.61
Source: Ex ante Report and Ex post
As can be seen from Table 38, there were a number of differences between the
assumptions underpinning the ex ante and ex post analyses. However, both
analyses found that the project provided good value for money, with time savings
being the most important benefit component. The ex post analysis therefore
validates the expected results from the ex ante appraisal.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
41
Table 38. Summary of the key parameter between the ex ante and ex post CBA
Difference
Ex ante analysis (1995)
Ex post analysis
5%
4% and 5.5%
Currency
£Irish
Euros
Price Base
1994
2002
Project open year
2000
2003
Appraisal period
31 years ( due to error)
30 years
Spreadsheet
COBA4
None
1 year/ 5 years
Forecast
In some cases observed
e.g. average accident
value
e.g. Accident value by
fatal/ serious and slight
injuries
6 links
13 key links + junctions
Discount rate
Model
Knowledge after opening
Traffic Growth Rates
Complexity of
calculations
Complexity of model
used
Costs
The capital costs used in the original ex ante appraisal were developed in 1995.
Converting to 2002 prices and euros gives an estimate of €147m. The outturn
cost was €232m. This represents an increase of 58% compared to the estimates
that were produced in 1995. There are a number of reasons why there was an
overspend compared to the original ex ante and compared to the original costs
submitted to the EC. These include:

The discovery of a number of archaeological sites leading to the
contractors‟ contract being extended. Only 2 of the 24 sites that were
found were documented in the original contract. This increased the
costs.

Delay and disruption. A long list of reasons for delays and disruption
were submitted. These include lack of possession of parts of the site
outside and within the motorway reservation, flooding caused by
blockages upstream and off site.

The redesign of culverts (designed to protect the badgers)
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
42
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011

Re-measurement Clause – The Irish Government has a clause by which
the costs can be re-measured once the contract has been awarded to pick
up any changes. This meant that the costs that were submitted to the EC
were not the final costs (as was expected by the EC), but had the ability
to be updated. This lead to a dispute between the EU and Ireland,
which was only resolved in June 2010 in Ireland‟s favour. It is not
common practice across the EC to re-measure costs after they have been
approved.

Changes due to the price variation clause.
Due to these increases in costs the ex post costs were greater than the ex ante
costs submitted.
Traffic Volumes
As can be seen by the discussion within this case study the traffic volumes both
in the ex ante report calculated in 1995 and the original ex post analysis produced
in 2004 underestimated the realised growth in traffic volumes. Two key drivers
of the traffic growth have been the larger than forecasted increase in GDP and
population growth in Ireland over the period. The ex ante report identified that
traffic growth was going to be highest for trips to Dublin Airport. Dublin airport
has seen an exponential growth in passengers over the period of study far in
excess of that forecast. These differences resulted in an underestimation of the
ex post traffic growth levels.
Travel Time Savings
Both the ex ante and the two ex post analyses found that travel time savings
formed the largest benefits that would arise from the construction of the M1.
The key differences between the studies are the sophistication in the model that
was used to determine these benefits, the disaggregation of the vehicles on the
network, the values of time used and ultimately the key differences in the traffic
volume as described above. The ex ante model comprised of a six link model.
The ex post was designed as a junction and link model with a total of 25 links.
This more detailed analysis in the ex post studies found that for Section 2
(Lissenhall to Balbriggan) there was little to no impact of the project on junction
delays, whilst for Section 1 (Cloghran to Lissenhall) the impact of the project on
relieving delays at junctions was significant. This impact was not considered in
the ex ante study.
These differences resulted in an under prediction of the travel time saving
benefits in the ex ante.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
43
Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs of the network were not included in the original ex ante and
the 2004 ex post analysis. Whilst small, at €0.36m (present value), this has lead to
an underestimate of the true costs of the M1.
Accidents
In terms of accidents, in the ex post appraisal in 2004 it was estimated that
between 272 (low) and 285 (high) would be saved over the 30 year appraisal
period. This is compared to the ex ante appraisal which seems optimistic at 60
fatal injuries saved, 437 serious injuries and 1233 minor injuries. Even when the
ex ante casualties are converted to accidents they are still far in excess of the ex
post figures.
Parameters
As summarised in the Table 38 there are a number of other key differences listed
that have affected the results. Firstly there is a difference in discount rate. The
ex ante used a 5% discount rate. The ex post produced in 2004 used a 5%
discount rate, which we updated to 5.5%. The ex post produced in 2009 used a
5.5% discount rate. These rates are all different to the one that is currently used
by the Irish Government (4%). The higher discount rate has the impact of
reducing the NPV compared to the lower discount rate used in the ex ante.
Another difference is that the ex ante assumed a starting year of 2000 rather than
the actual opening year of 2003.
The sophistication of the model that was used to calculate the ex post results has
meant that a greater level of data and detail could be generated on the effects of
the project. This has had an impact on the values that have been produced (e.g.
journey purpose and vehicle category proportions).
6.5
Role of CBA in the decision-making process
We discussed the role of ex ante and ex post cost-benefit analysis with the
National Roads Authority in Ireland and other stakeholders.
Regarding ex ante CBA, in short, the role that it plays in decision-making has
altered since 1995. In 1995 it is apparent that CBA played no role in the decision
making process of the M1 Northern Motorway, but today ex ante CBA forms an
integral part of current transport appraisal methods used in Ireland (and
therefore the decision-making). There is still scope for improvement today, as
not every decision made by government and its institutions is based on CBA but
the situation is very different from 1995.
In 1995 when the ex ante CBA was undertaken the preferred route, alignment
and design standard and already been selected. This selection was based on a
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
44
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
series of engineering studies. The CBA therefore played no role in the definition
of the project. What the CBA did do was confirm the view held by decisionmakers that the project was good value for money.
At the time of the ex ante CBA Ireland had already implemented a framework
for road transport appraisal, and whilst the project design process had already
occurred, at this point in time, the ex ante CBA followed these guidelines. These
guidelines have since been updated and the current guidelines for national road
subprojects are described in full on the National Roads Authority‟s website4.
These guidelines are in full compliance with the Department of Finance (DoF)
guidance on the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in
the public sector5. The DoF guidance also provides details on how Ireland
complies with the regulations associated with the Cohesion Funding. For
example, the document states that „programmes co-financed by Structural Funds must be
subject to ex ante, interim, including mid-term and ex post evaluation designed to appraise their
impact on EU Structural Fund Objectives. Implementation of these requirements is a matter
for the programme managing authorities in conjunction with the implementing bodies and subject
to consideration by each programme monitoring committee.‟ P13 DoF(2005)
The guidance requires a CBA to be undertaken at the following stages:

route selection (phase 3)

preliminary design (Phase 4)

final account/ close out (Phase 7)
The comprehensiveness of the CBA increases as the stages progress.
The Irish NRA has developed its own version of the COBA model, based on the
UK version. The model is used to determine the results of a CBA for roads
projects.
In terms of ex post appraisal, the NRA guidelines require that “ a post project
completion report be prepared”. This report is designed to verify that all aspects have
been completed, to confirm the budget information and to identify any issues
that might have arisen in the planning and implementation of the project
(especially those issues that may have repercussions for future projects).
The Department of Finance guidelines require, in addition to this report, a Post
Project Review (PPR) for all projects costing more than €30m. The PPR must
consider whether:

“the basis of a project were proven correct;
4
For the NRA website see http://www.nra.ie/Publications/ProjectAppraisal/
5
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/capappguide05.pdf
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
45

the expected benefits and outcomes materialised;

the planned outcomes were the appropriate responses to actual public needs;

the appraisal and management procedures adopted were satisfactory and,

conclusions can be drawn applicable to other projects, to the ongoing use of the asset ,
or to associated policies.‟
The NRA also told us that the timing of the ex post appraisal was critical to the
success and usefulness of the process. However it was noted that it takes longer
than one year for the safety benefits to be realized. It was suggested that a 5 to
10 year interval would be better to ensure that all the project impacts are taken
into account.
This notwithstanding, the NRA guidelines state that „a PPR should be undertaken
once sufficient time has elapsed to allow the project to be properly evaluated with sufficient
evidence of the flow of benefits and costs from it. It is envisaged that, except in special
circumstances, the PPR should be commenced one year after project opening. This timing ensures
that at least a full year‟s experience of operation of the road and of the traffic volumes arising is
available to inform the analysis. At the same time, it also enhances the likelihood that personnel
engaged in the project planning and implementation are still available to help address data and
information gaps”
The NRA also provided comments on the EC appraisal guide (2008). It was felt
that the guidelines were worded „cautiously‟ in the sense that a strong steer isnot
always been given. Moreover, it was noted that requiring Member States‟
institutions to undertake CBA analysis without ensuring an understanding of
transport modelling was potentially problematic. Whilst the parameters quoted
in the guidelines are appropriate, the guide does not bridge the potential
knowledge gap in terms of modelling.
One stakeholder drew our attention to the level of auditing associated with
ISPA/Cohesion Fund. It was felt that there was sometimes a conflict between
national audits being different to the DG REGIO audits. One example raised
was the issue of the re-measurement of contracts, which led Ireland to believe
that they were due more money than the European Court of Auditors did. The
re-measurement process allows construction costs in Ireland to be updated to
reflect true costs after the contract has been awarded (after the money had been
granted by the EC at certain rates). The EC disputed this arrangement. This was
resolved in Ireland‟s favour for the two subprojects considered by this study only
in June 2010.
Appendix 6 – M1 Northern Motorway in Ireland
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
47
Detailed results
Figure 8. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Economic analysis (€m, 2002 prices) –
Low case
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Time Benefits
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
96.1
129.2
153.3
177.1
204.1
210.3
216.7
Vehicle Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.2
5.9
5.9
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.8
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101.3
135.1
159.9
184.7
212.6
218.9
225.4
Investment Costs
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.8
-3.8
-14.6
-59.1
-75.4
29.1
131.4
159.9
184.6
212.6
218.9
225.4
2010
2011
2012
2013
229.7
241.9
254.8
264.7
274.8
285.1
295.9
307.0
318.2
329.9
342.8
356.1
6.2
6.4
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
238.9
251.5
264.8
275.0
285.3
295.9
307.0
318.4
329.9
341.8
355.1
368.7
Investment Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
238.8
251.4
264.8
275.0
285.3
295.9
307.0
318.4
329.8
341.8
355.0
368.7
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
COSTS (Undiscounted)
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Time Benefits
Vehicle Operating Costs
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
COSTS (Undiscounted)
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Total
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Time Benefits
Vehicle Operating Costs
369.9
383.2
396.7
410.1
423.1
438.3
453.6
469.4
486.1
503.3
521.1
9542.3
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.5
217.1
4.9
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.7
6.9
126.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
382.9
396.4
410.2
424.1
437.3
453.0
468.6
484.7
501.7
519.3
537.5
9885.7
COSTS (Undiscounted)
Investment Costs
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
232.4
0.8
TOTAL COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
233.1
382.8
396.4
410.2
424.0
437.3
452.9
468.5
484.7
501.7
519.3
537.4
9652.6
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Discount rate
ENPV
ERR
B/C Ratio
5.5%
3804.53
52.80%
17.19
Source: Own calculations
Detailed results
48
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 9. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial return on investment (€m, 2002
prices) – Low case
1998
1999
2000
2001
TOTAL REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.8
-3.8
-14.6
-59.1
-75.4
-72.1
-3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CASH FLOW
2002
2003
2014
2004
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2024
2025
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
232.4
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
233.1
CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-233.1
Detailed results
2031
2021
0.0
Source: Own calculations
2030
2009
2023
N/A
2029
2008
0.0
5.0%
-234.8
2028
2007
2022
FRR (C)
2027
2006
TOTAL REVENUES
Discount rate
FNPV (C)
2026
2005
2032
Total
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
49
Figure 10. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial return on capital (€m, 2002
prices) – Low case
1998
1999
2000
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Revenues
Residual values
2002
2003
0.0
2004
0.0
2005
0.0
2006
0.0
2007
0.0
2008
0.0
2009
0.0
0.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regional contrintribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
National contribution
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-0.6
-5.7
-21.2
-25.8
-24.1
-2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
Revenues
Residual values
0.0
0.0
2014
2015
0.0
2016
0.0
2017
0.0
2018
0.0
2019
0.0
2020
0.0
2021
0.0
0.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regional contrintribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
National contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2022
2023
2024
2025
Revenues
Residual values
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.5
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.5
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
81.3
NET CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-81.3
Discount rate
FNPV (K)
FRR (K)
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Total
0.8
5.0%
81.4
N/A
Source: Own calculations
Detailed results
50
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 11. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial sustainability (€m, 2002
prices) – Low case
1998
1999
2000
2001
EU Grant
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
8.9
0.0
0.0
5.7
37.9
0.0
0.0
21.2
2002
49.7
0.0
0.0
25.8
48.1
0.0
0.0
24.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Operating subsidies
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL INFLOWS
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
59.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.1
0.0
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.4
0.0
72.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.1
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
59.1
0.0
0.0
75.4
0.0
0.0
72.1
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
CUMULATED CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.3
2022
2005
2023
2006
2024
2007
2025
2008
2026
2009
2027
2010
2028
2011
2029
2012
2030
2013
2031
2014
2016
2017
2018
2019
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Operating subsidies
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
CUMULATED CASH FLOW
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.8
Detailed results
2021
2004
EU Grant
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
Source: Own calculations
2020
2003
2032
2015
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
51
Figure 12. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Economic analysis (€m, 2002 prices) –
High case
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Time Benefits
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
96.1
129.2
153.3
177.1
204.0
210.3
216.7
Vehicle Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.2
5.9
5.9
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101.3
135.1
160.0
184.7
212.7
219.0
225.5
Investment Costs
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.8
-3.8
-14.6
-59.1
-75.4
29.2
131.5
160.0
184.7
212.7
219.0
225.5
2010
2011
2012
2013
229.7
241.9
254.8
265.9
277.2
288.9
301.1
314.3
327.0
340.1
354.4
368.7
6.2
6.4
6.7
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
239.0
251.6
264.9
276.4
288.0
300.1
312.6
326.2
339.2
352.7
367.4
382.2
Investment Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
COSTS (Undiscounted)
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Time Benefits
Vehicle Operating Costs
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
COSTS (Undiscounted)
TOTAL COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
238.9
251.5
264.9
276.3
288.0
300.0
312.6
326.2
339.2
352.7
367.4
382.1
2022
2023
2024
2025
382.2
397.1
413.2
429.8
447.0
461.0
482.2
500.1
518.7
536.7
553.7
9872.4
8.7
8.9
9.1
9.3
9.5
9.8
10.0
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.9
230.0
5.2
5.4
5.7
5.9
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.6
135.2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
396.1
411.4
427.9
444.9
462.6
477.1
498.8
517.2
536.2
554.7
572.2
10237.6
Investment Costs
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
232.4
0.8
TOTAL COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
233.1
396.0
411.4
427.9
444.9
462.6
477.1
498.8
517.1
536.2
554.6
572.1
10004.4
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Total
BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Consumers Surplus
Time Benefits
Vehicle Operating Costs
Externalities
Accident Reduction
Environment
TOTAL BENEFITS
COSTS (Undiscounted)
NET BENEFITS (Undiscounted)
Discount rate
ENPV
ERR
B/C Ratio
5.5%
3905.03
52.83%
17.61
Source: Own calculation
Detailed results
52
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 13. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial return on investment (€m,
2002 prices) – High case
1998
1999
2000
2001
TOTAL REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.8
-3.8
-14.6
-59.1
-75.4
-72.1
-3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2022
2023
2024
2025
TOTAL REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
232.4
Maintenance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
233.1
CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-233.1
CASH FLOW
Discount rate
FNPV (C)
5.0%
-234.8
FRR (C)
Source: Own calculations
Detailed results
N/A
2002
2014
2026
2003
2015
2027
2004
2016
2028
2005
2017
2029
2006
2018
2030
2007
2019
2031
2008
2020
2032
2009
2021
Total
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
53
Figure 14. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial return on capital (€m, 2002
prices) – High case
1998
1999
2000
2001
Revenues
Residual values
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
21.2
0.0
0.0
25.8
0.0
0.0
24.1
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
Total Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-0.6
-5.7
-21.2
-25.8
-24.1
-2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
2002
2006
2018
2012
2013
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
Total Operating Costs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2022
2023
2024
2025
Revenues
Residual values
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Local contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.5
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.5
Maintenance
Total Operating Costs
TOTAL FINANCIAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
81.3
NET CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-81.3
2030
2031
2020
2009
0.0
---
2029
2019
2008
2011
2028
2017
2007
0.0
---
2027
2016
2005
2010
2026
2015
2004
Revenues
Residual values
Discount rate
FNPV (K)
FRR (K)
2014
2003
2032
2021
Total
5.0%
81.4
N/A
Source: Own calculations
Detailed results
54
Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 15. M1 Northern Motorway – Ireland. Financial sustainability (€m, 2002
prices) – High case
1998
1999
2000
2001
EU Grant
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
8.9
0.0
0.0
5.7
37.9
0.0
0.0
21.2
2002
49.7
0.0
0.0
25.8
48.1
0.0
0.0
24.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.6
0.6
5.7
21.2
25.8
24.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Operating subsidies
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL INFLOWS
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
59.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.1
0.0
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.4
0.0
72.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.1
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS
3.8
3.8
14.6
59.1
75.4
72.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
59.1
0.0
0.0
75.4
0.0
0.0
72.1
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
CUMULATED CASH FLOW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.3
2022
2005
2023
2006
2024
2007
2025
2008
2026
2009
2027
2010
2028
2011
2029
2012
2030
2013
2031
2014
2016
2017
2018
2019
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total national public contribution
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Operating subsidies
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL INFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL OUTFLOWS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NET CASH FLOW
CUMULATED CASH FLOW
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.7
0.0
-0.8
Detailed results
2021
2004
EU Grant
Local contribution
Regional contrintribution
National contribution
Source: Own calculations
2020
2003
2032
2015
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS
55
Detailed results