Delivering megaprojects is difficult. The ancient Egyptians knew that. Doing so for transport comes with even greater challenges. Ireland has become all too familiar with this over the decades, including in recent times.
That. However, hasn’t held back ambition and the state is at an ambitious stage of development in that respect under the National Development Plan. The expansion of the Dart, along with the MetroLink project, will, upon completion, radically increase the rail infrastructure in the Dublin area.
As infrastructure projects go, these are among the largest in scale ever taken on by the State, both in terms of cost and difficulty. They have also served to highlight the risk that comes with such projects.
Fundamentally, it’s a matter of complexity. Rail projects are far more than laying track and drilling tunnels, both of which are arduous enough tasks in their own right.
READ MORE
They involve integration with existing networks and factoring in how they affect other modes of transport. Those knock-on impacts, irrespective of positivity, such as environmental impact, need to be factored in.
They add layers of complexity to the overall project, which will affect access to construction resources, both in terms of staff and material supply, and managing the volatility that comes with them.
MetroLink is a classic example of this, as its cost estimates have evolved as the planning and design process progresses. Theory only provides so much of the picture; it’s when things get practical that new challenges emerge.
These occur before any on-site work even begins. The complexity of transport megaprojects means that multiple contracts and contractors are often needed. Furthermore, this increases the need for a more detailed and challenging procurement process.
The division into multiple construction packages doesn’t so much remove complexity as it moves it. Each sub-project has to be made to work as part of the wider whole.
MetroLink is a good example here, where drilling and station construction are two wholly different types of projects but need to work together once the system is actually operational.
The positive impact of this approach is that a broader range of specialists can be engaged and greater competition for contracts can be fostered. It also spreads risk, as with different suppliers for different parts of the project, there is no single point of catastrophic failure.
The price that comes with this is the need to find ways to manage all these moving parts in tandem because minor but fixable failures are essentially guaranteed in such a process.
This is where the likes of MetroLink have provided, to the State at an administrative level that will benefit governments far into the future. There’s an understanding that procurement requires its own internal planning process before even seeking tenders. By engaging more with the market, the complexity of future megaprojects can be made more manageable.
The lessons have come at a fiscal cost to the state, but not without real return. There are clear and visible points in governance where improvements can be made that will hold for projects far beyond those under way.
Some of these focus on the planning and legal process. It may only be one stage of the process, but we’ve seen how big a knock-on impact it can have through MetroLink. Aspects such as environmental assessments, consultation phases, and the need for adequate time to work around or address legal challenges must all be factored in.
Accounting for these while addressing stakeholders and finding ways to reduce the time required to manage these issues is the challenge ahead. Judicial review is taken as a certainty at this stage, but reducing the need for it will likely reduce the time spent on it.
At the core of all of this is programme management. Ambitious projects need to have the strongest management structures in place to ensure realistic delivery capabilities and timetables.
The end user of MetroLink just wants to get from point A to point B, but even they understand that it involves a lot of work before they get on board. There are connection points all along the development journey, but finding a way to ensure failure at a single point doesn’t cascade into substantial delays elsewhere is the core lesson here.
